[ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd)

[John M. Brown]

and when I worked on a project that merged two very
large Banking networks together, it was a PIA.  They
both used the same RFC-1918 space.   The "buying bank"
caused the "bought bank" to renumber.  At the end of the
day, both banks ended up renumbering from 192.168 space
into 10.x space.

There where other issues, like one bank used OSPF, the other
some vendor proprietary routing update protocol.  

yes, the quick fix to someones engineering problem isn't within
the scope of the RIR's.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of sigma at smx.pair.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:32 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd)
> 
> 
> 
> The argument I've always heard is "Company A is using 
> 192.168.1.0 and so is Company B".  But one or the other 
> company would have to renumber, regardless, so it hardly 
> seems to matter if Company B renumbers to 192.168.2.0 (or 
> 10.10.10.10 for that matter), or if they renumber to some 
> non-routed block of "public" IP space.
> 
> I have to weigh in and agree that the "quick fix" idea of 
> handing out /24's is short-sighted and disregards what has 
> happened in the past.
> 
> Kevin
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Mury -----
> 
> From owner-ppml at arin.net Wed Oct 02 17:18:31 2002
> Delivered-To: sigma at smx.pair.com
> X-Envelope-To: sigma at smx.pair.com
> Delivered-To: sigma at pair.com
> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:14:23 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Mury <mury at goldengate.net>
> To: George Cottay <cottay at qconline.com>
> cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9
> In-Reply-To: <001101c26a33$68f22050$020d010a at cottay>
> Message-ID: 
> <Pine.BSI.4.21.0210021211110.13738-100000 at dew.goldengate.net>
> Sender: owner-ppml at arin.net
> Precedence: bulk
> 
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> The only reasons I can think of that someone would want private
> (non-public) but yet non-routable space would be for uses not 
> Internet/LAN/WAN related.  And that isn't our problem, nor 
> ARIN's responsibility.
> 
> But I've been accused of being a slow-thinker before, so I'm 
> curiously waiting for the answer.
> 
> Mury
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, George Cottay wrote:
> 
> > Well, the time has come for me to confess ignorance and possible 
> > inattention.
> >  
> > 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'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?
> >  
> > 
> 
> ----- End of forwarded message from Mury -----
>