[ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity
owen at delong.com
Thu Apr 1 17:19:05 EST 2004
Where in the RFC does it say you get to make that determination and not
the registry staff? Either I missed it, or, you're applying assumptions
to the interpretation of 2050 that I can't guarantee will hold up when
the rubber hits the road.
--On Thursday, April 1, 2004 15:06 +0100 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
>>> 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
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML