[ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd)
Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG
Wed Oct 2 13:58:33 EDT 2002
On Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:32 PM, 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.
Neither company has to renumber if NAT is used.
Which company should renumber?
>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.
Why not make policy so that the current holders of multiple /8-24s have
to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current criteria)? That
would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML