[AusNOG] IPv4

Bob Purdon bobp at purdon.id.au
Mon Mar 4 12:32:18 EST 2013

> Not this old, discredited idea again.


>> I'm thinking of the universities that are sitting on /16's, yet
>> announcing only a /24 or two from that range.  I believe the US
>> military, and various large corporations are also guilty of sitting on
>> /8's.
> So are you going to pay the costs of renumbering their networks
> because the addresses are in use whether you can see that they are
> in use or not?


> Note just because the addresses are not announce to the public
> internet doesn't mean that they are not annouced or need to be
> unique with respect to the public internet.  There are networks
> that see these announcements and also see those on the public
> internet.

Isn't this partly what RFC1918 space is for?

I just don't see it as appropriate that organisations chew up public 
internet resources (IP addresses), but don't use them on the public 
internet.  I'm sure I am not alone in that.

RFC1918, as we all know, provides for private addresses for use in 
private networks.

>> The NIC's should be looking at what is announced and for space that's
>> not the owners should be required to announce it (with useful/meaningful
>> services occupying it), or hand it back.
> So you want the NIC's to break their existing contracts to "reclaim"
> addresses that may or may not be in use.  Are you will to pay their
> legal fees when it is almost certain that they will loose.

Do the existing 'contracts' provide for eternal allocation of an unused 
resource?  Are they even contracts?  My memory isn't good enough to 
remember the correspondence I went through when getting free space from 
AUNIC a bazillion years ago (and I've not been through it with any NIC 
outside of AsiaPac, so I don't know what the rest of the world has done).

>> If it's not in the global routing table then you don't need it (you
>> should renumber into RFC1918 space and NAT, since if you are using the
>> space you're obviously NATing it).
> Discredited logic.

I'm not sure your argument above discredited it.

You indicated, as I understand it, a need for some organisations to have 
unique IP space to enable communication between themseleves, in addition 
to communication with the public internet.

Other than those truly massive private inter-networks for which there is 
not enough RFC1918 space, the remainder could use RFC1918 space, no?

Happy to be proven wrong.  I've not worked for an organisation that's 
had this problem.

>> If you are announcing it, but nothing is listening (even residential DSL
>> users are often pingable and a small percentage have something
>> listening) - then you're probably using it for outward initiated
>> connectivity, in which case you can most likely use NAT and don't need
>> the space either.
> There are lots of homes that only listen some of the time.  With UPnP
> listening gets turned on and off all the time.  The users often don't
> know that they are listening.

The point being that in a given /19 for example, there would be enough 
listening to know it's being used.  I'm sure there's a way to see if a 
given block of space is likely to be used.

> The inevitable is here now.  The future has arrived.  Get over it
> and deploy IPv6.  You will find that most of your equipment already
> supports it.  IPv4 is starting to be come a stinking, rotten corpse.

I do have IPv6, and have done for quite some time.  The last network I 
managed was fully dual-stacked.

More information about the AusNOG mailing list