[ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-3: Global Addresses for Private N etwork Inter-Connectivity

Azinger, Marla marla_azinger at eli.net
Thu Apr 1 12:45:52 EST 2004

Dawn-  your last sentence gets to the point of this very proposal.  Because
ARIN and many members of ARIN have used IP's this way and agree that it is
needed, possible and not going against any current policy.  It's just
that...some (even myself back two years ago) found this a tad unclear.  This
policy is simply striving to achieve clarification.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dawn Martin [mailto:Dawn.Martin at mci.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:42 AM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-3: Global Addresses for Private
Network Inter-Connectivity

I would agree with Randy here that what "is possible" is not what is
feasible. Your example is perfect, when multiple private networks are linked
unique IP addresses need to be used. What I have heard from the ARIN
meetings are that "is not possible" means not technically possible. i.e. if
it is conceivable it is achievable.

It is really just a clarification that is being sought to detail when
globally unique IPs can be used to connect private networks.

-Dawn Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of
Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 9:06 AM
To: randy at psg.com
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-3: Global Addresses for Private
Network Inter-Connectivity

>> a)  the organization has no intention of connecting to
>>     the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still
>>     requires a globally unique IP address.  The organization
>>     should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918.
>>     If it is determined this is not possible, they can be
>>     issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses.
>> It does not mandate following RFC 1918

>well, that "is not possible" is pretty strong.

Hmmm... well let's say I sat down with my boss to discuss
the use of RFC 1918 addresses and he said to me, "It's not
possible to use RFC 1918 addresses because we have promised
our customers that we will use globally registered addresses".

Seems to me that I have now determined that the use of 
RFC 1918 addresses is not possible and I am in full 
compliance with RFC 2050. Of course we would all hope that
there was some technical basis for the impossibility criterion
but the RFC doesn't go that far.

However, the examples that are in the rationale for the
proposed policy do contain good technical justification,
for instance, connecting together a large number of 
existing private E911 networks over a large geographic
area. Unique addresses are needed to maintain universal
routability in such an interconnect infrastructure.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list