[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing

[Pete Templin]

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]  On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk
Sent:	Thursday, May 17, 2007 10:42 AM
To:	David Conrad
Cc:	Public Policy Mailing List
Subject:	Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing

1/8 is not usable for human reasons.  10/8 and 192.168/16 are not 
recoverable because that'd give people nothing left to NAT with, and NAT is 
about to become even more prevalent than it already is as people desperately 
try to avoid migrating to v6.  172.16/12 could probably be reduced to 
172.16/16 without much grief, but pulling 172.16/16 would be tough (though 
not as bad as 192.168/16).

Time out - what on EARTH makes 172.16/12 (with or without 172.16/16) special enough to be reclaimed?

I quote from RFC1918: "An enterprise that decides to use IP addresses out of the address space defined in this document can do so without any coordination with IANA or an Internet registry."

Nothing in that statement gives special exception to any of the address ranges listed in the RFC.

Pete Templin
Manager of Data Operations
TexLink Communications
(210) 892-4183
pete.templin at texlink.com


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of TexLink Communications Inc and/or its affiliates, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.