[ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-3 Global Addresses for Private Network Inter -Connectivity

[Andrew Dul]

Chip Mefford <cpm at well.com> wrote: 
> Randy Bush wrote:
> | this is arin, not some advice to the hacker group.  use of 1918
> | space is dangerous and can cause nasty surprises to pop up
> | years later.  see
> |
> |     <http://rip.psg.com/~randy/040226.apnic-nats.pdf>.
> 
> Agreed in principal.
> 
> But the core issue remains. There are some of us out here
> who are tiny, and must get by with (-also, another generally bad
> idea, CIDRs- of) /26 or /28s or less.
> 
> What choice have we?

So what is preventing you from requesting a larger block from your upstream (or ARIN if you have a large enough network) to include the addresses that you currently NAT?  Is it economic?  ie. the recurring cost your current upstream "charges" for additional address space?  or  the cost of readdressing?  Something else?

Andrew