[AusNOG] Unadvertised large IPv4 allocations in the APNIC region

[Daniel Mills]

Hey Dale,

Maybe its because it would take APNIC too much hard work to work out what
ranges can be possibly re-allocated. It is not very often that APNIC lift a
hand when we (I) need support for my resources, they just point me to some
automated database that fails. This would give them something to do and
maybe earn there money haha :)

Surely these government departments must be sick of paying such absorbinant
amounts, for the department im talking about, if they could potentially
half their yearly bill to APNIC, it would be a great incentive to remove
the single line "network 159.248.0.0 255.255.0.0" from their Cisco border
routers...

Maybe someone should prepare a database of such ranges that could be given
back, 2x /16's = 1x /8 which is a huge amount of IPv4 space.

The person behind the original IPv4 nat addressing scheme didnt know that
the Australian government and educational sectors would take it on board
and use it as a policy for their internal lans. But he should of known
better! :)

Daniel

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:08:44 +1100, Dale Shaw <dale.shaw+ausnog at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Daniel Mills
> <daniel.mills at selectcorp.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> That is quite interesting. I know of a government organisation here in
>> Perth who has 2x /16's and are only advertising 1x /24 out of one of the
>> /16's and use the rest of that /16 for internal NAT ip addressing...
> 
> Uhuh :-)
> 
>> An extreme misuse im sure.
> 
> Lots of Government agencies and corporates -- even ones that aren't
> very big -- that have had an Internet presence of some description
> since the 90s are holding on to large amounts of IPv4 stock. I can
> think of about 5-6 unadvertised /16s allocated to Government
> organisations I've worked with directly in the last few years. There
> has been no real incentive to return unused IPv4 address space, and
> sometimes even with the best intentions, it can take years to renumber
> internal networks.
> 
> Not that we would be saved even if they could figure out a way to give
> them back, given the rate we're hoovering 'em up.
> 
> [ I don't recall who said it or who they were referring to but at the
> IPv6 Summit this week, one of the speakers said that one of the people
> behind the original IPv4 NAT concept openly apologised for creating a
> monster (my words) at an IETF meeting :-) -- anyone got a ref.? ]
> 
> cheers,
> Dale

-- 
Kind Regards,

Daniel Mills
DIRECTOR

Select Communications (Australia) Pty Ltd

PHONE: +61 8 6365 5618
FAX: +61 8 6365 5619
EMAIL: daniel.mills at selectcorp.com.au