<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jul 30, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><br><a href="mailto:michael.dillon@bt.com">michael.dillon@bt.com</a> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Didn't one<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">of the academics do a peer-reviewed study and a scan of the Internet<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">last year with results suggesting (among other things) that about<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">2/3rds of the allocated address space is not employed on the public<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Internet?<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Irrelevant.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ARIN does not allocate IP addresses for the public Internet.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ARIN's role is to allocate IP addresses to organizations that require them<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">in order to build and operate Internet Protocol networks. While many of these<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">private networks are interconnected to form the public Internet, that is not<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">relevant to ARIN's mission. It has never been mandatory to make your IP<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">network part of the public Internet and there is no good reason to change<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">that.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">--Michael Dillon<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br>All that is historically true. Now it is only true to a much lesser extent.<br><br></div></blockquote>I haven't seen any changes to the NRPM which make it true to a lesser extent.</div><div><br></div><div>What changes in ARIN policy can you show that make this less true?</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Current reality is that globally unique addresses are of most value on the global network and I would be quite surprised if the percentage of allocation for other purposes was above single percentage digits.<br><br></div></blockquote></div><div>Then I am pretty sure you are surprised.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Policy already differentiates for multi-homers to the global network. Does that mean that policy requires the allocations to these multi-homers on that basis to be routable? In my experience, the common impression is yes, it does.<br><br></div></blockquote>ARIN policy says nothing about whether addresses ARIN issues are routable or not with the exception of disclaimers stating "ARIN cannot guarantee..."</div><div><br></div><div>In any case, this has nothing to do with the fact that allocations or assignments for non-public networks are perfectly legitimate under current ARIN policy.</div><div><br></div><div>From NRPM 4.3.5:</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 19px; "><h5 style="margin-top: 0.5em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-size: 12px !important; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; clear: both; display: block; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">4.3.5. Non-connected Networks</h5><div style="margin-top: 0.5em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-size: 1.2em; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; ">End-users not currently connected to an ISP and/or not planning to be connected to the Internet are encouraged to use private IP address numbers reserved for non-connected networks (see <a href="https://www.arin.net/knowledge/rfc/rfc1918.txt" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">RFC 1918</a>). When private, non-connected networks require interconnectivity and the private IP address numbers are ineffective, globally unique addresses may be requested and used to provide this interconnectivity.</div></span></div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>That a large portion of allocations as well as legacy space appear to be non-routed is more likely due to happenstance rather than the intentional design and purpose of the allocation at the time it was made.<br><br></div></blockquote>I do not agree. Of course we are both speculating to a large extent here. However, many things that appear non-routed from one perspective are routed from other perspectives. There is no single unified global routing table.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>I expect, and I hope, that requests for global resources that are not to be addressable on the global network must demonstrate why site-local rfc1918 addressing is not sufficient for their needs, as it is for the overwhelming majority of network not directly addressable from the global network.<br><br></div></blockquote>As stated in NRPM 4.3.5, they do. However, that is pretty simple:</div><div><br></div><div>Hello, we're organization A. We don't want to connect to the internet, but, we do want to exchange traffic with several other organizations using IP. As such, coordination of RFC-1918 between or organizations is infeasible and we request globally unique unicast IP numbers.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>I do believe that suitable need can be demonstrated in a minority of situations.<br><br></div></blockquote>A minority, perhaps, but, certainly not a particularly limited minority.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Policy that dictates that requests for global resources must demonstrate a global need for those resources is not out of order.<br><br></div></blockquote>It may not be out of order, but, it is not current policy. I suspect such a proposal would be unlikely to gain consensus, but, if you feel that it can, I encourage you to write it up and submit it. If you want help, I'm happy to help you.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Demonstrating justified global need should not nearly be as easy for resources intended to not being addressable on the global network as otherwise.<br><br></div></blockquote>Again, that isn't current policy, so, you'll need to gain consensus around a proposal to make it so.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div><br></body></html>