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

[John M. Brown]

These are internal engineering problems for those two
organizations, and not a problem that public allocation
policy should address.




> -----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 11:56 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd)
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the case of a merger, I'm sorry.  I meant in the case 
> of the two companies wanting to connect their networks.
> 
> Kevin
> 
> > Are you saying that "they" are claiming the need for private 
> > non-routable /24's is in case of a merger?
> > 
> > Nobody can be that silly, can they?
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 sigma at smx.pair.com wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 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 -----
> > > 
> > 
>