[AusNOG] Unadvertised large IPv4 allocations in the APNIC region

[Daniel Mills]

Hey Leo,

Renumbering does take alot more effort than that yes, however, when they
are not used on the internal network, on any node, there is there for
nothing to renumber and as simple as i have stated.

I agree that using unique numbering if you connect to other networks
internally which gov't org's quite often do and i agree that there is a
specific need for this, from my experience its via a firewall, i dont think
i have seen two seperate government networks directly connected via a layer
2 link with broadcast capabilities.

Daniel.

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:23:18 -0700, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2010, at 6:49, Daniel Mills wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> 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...
> 
> I suspect that renumbering takes a little more effort than that edit.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 2x /16 used to be a /15 (if contiguous and bit-aligned). You'd need 256
> contiguous, bit-aligned /16s for a /8.
> 
>> 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! :)
> 
> IP addresses were made available for IP networks. Some of those IP
networks
> and inter-networks were and are private because they were for particular
> communities like the military, financial services and so on. To me, it
> seems quite reasonable that networks do not advertise routes to other
> networks that don't need to know about them. 
> 
> It is quite possible to need IP addresses for an IP network and to need
> unique addresses because the network will connect to other networks and
RFC
> 1918 address clashes would break things.
> 
> Of course, returning addresses you no longer need is the right thing to
do
> but don't imagine for a minute that it will buy significant amount of
time.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Leo Vegoda