<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9 (fwd)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>On Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:32 PM, sigma@smx.pair.com wrote:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>The argument I've always heard is "Company A is using 192.168.1.0 and so is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Company B". But one or the other company would have to renumber,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>regardless, so it hardly seems to matter if Company B renumbers to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>192.168.2.0 (or 10.10.10.10 for that matter), or if they renumber to some</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>non-routed block of "public" IP space.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Neither company has to renumber if NAT is used.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Which company should renumber?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>I have to weigh in and agree that the "quick fix" idea of handing out /24's</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>is short-sighted and disregards what has happened in the past.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Why not make policy so that the current holders of multiple /8-24s have</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>to renumber then (the ones that do not meet the current criteria)? That</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>would certainly yield same additional address space, wouldn`t it?</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>