[ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9

[Mury]

I'm still confused.  If they want to connect to each other why do they
have to re-number to a public non-routable block?  Why can't they
re-number to a different block in the 10/172/192 space?

Could they have forseen this need?  I doubt it.  If they had forseen the
need, why didn't they use 10.175.122.0/24 or some other obsure /24 in the
available ranges?  Remember we are talking about a /24.  

The chances of two companies using /24's, needing to communicate with each
other, and having the same block has to be pretty darn small.  And it's a
moot point anyway unless they foresaw the need enough to purchase a
special public non-routable block from ARIN.

This is further a moot point by the economic savings of VPNs and
tunneling.  If they aready have connectivity why the heck would they pay
for a new link?  Remember we are talking /24's!  I can see the reason for
larger companies.

Public non-routable blocks make no sense.  

Mury

On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Jeff Urmann wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:48 AM, George Cottay (cottay at qconline.com)
> wrote:
> >I'm confused by discussion here about needs for non-routed IP's other than
> the present 10, 172, and 192 space already reserved.  Especially given the
> size of the 10.0.0.0/8, I cannot for the life of me imagine an organization
> needing more. Even if one were to divide on the basis of the old class C,
> that leaves upwards of 65,000 possible subnets with which to play. 
> 
> I haven`t see the above mentioned here.
> 
> >I'm even more confused by mention of a need for public addresses that are
> not routed.  I thought routing was the most significant difference between
> public and private space. 
> 
> >Is anyone inclined to explain?
> 
> I believe I started this.  Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
> Let me try again...
> 
> I only mentioned non-routable to address the routing table size
> limitations.  I thought I would lobby to get reserved space for that
> if /24 allocations were not possible.
> 
> CompanyA and CompanyB, each having their own autonomy, are using private
> IP addresses as described in RFC1918.  Both Companies are connected
> independently to the internet via their ISP of choice with public space
> provided by their ISP.  Both companies wish to connect to each other
> directly (not through the internet).  Since there is a conflict in IP
> addresses, NAT with public IP addresses is necessary.  CompanyB insists
> that CompanyA use public address space (internet routable or otherwise;
> neither Company cares).
> 
> CompanyA needs about 100 distinct public IP addresses (to start anyway).
> To the best of my knowledge and experience, there is currently no way to
> get a non-routable or routable public /24 to satisfy these requirements.
> ISPs claim CompanyA cannot justify, based on ARIN policy, more address
> space.
>