I see 11.2/16 in my table.
> -----Original Message----- > From: deles...@gmail.com [mailto:deles...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 10:10 AM > To: Michael Dillon; Lee Howard > Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Todd Underwood > Subject: Re: Todd Underwood was a little late > > I just checked all those /8's none of them are in the table. > > -jim > Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Dillon <wavetos...@googlemail.com> > Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:39:07 > To: Lee Howard<l...@asgard.org> > Cc: <nanog@nanog.org>; Todd Underwood<toddun...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Todd Underwood was a little late > > " "Registered but unrouted" would include space that is in use in large > > private networks that aren't visible from your standard sources for > > route views, such as U.S. DoD (6, 11, 22, 26, 28, 29, 30 /8) or U.K. > > MoD (25/8). > > Have you verified each of these address ranges or are you just a > mindless > robot repeating urban legends? > > By your definition, there is an awful lot more "registered but > unrouted" space > and researchers have been reporting on this for 10 years or more. In > order > to correctly identify what you think you are talking about, you need to > take > into account the date a range was registered and the date that you > scanned > the data. If the difference between the two dates is less than some > small > number, say one year, then it is probably routed space which has not > yet > been routed but soon will be. Different people will want to set that > breakpoint > at different timescales for obvious reasons. > > I encourage someone to do the work to list all such ranges along with > the > dates, and supply them as a feed, like Cymru does. Best would be to > allow > the feed recipient to filter based on age of block. > > > I've heard that some organizations are growing beyond rfc1918 space > > Many organizations have grown beyond RFC 1918 space. The first ones > that > made it known publicly were cable companies about 15 years ago. > > And lets not forget that RFC 1597 and 1918 were relatively recent > inventions. > Before that, many organizations did "adopt" large chunks of class A > space. > One that I know of used everything from 1/8 to 8/8 and there were > multiple > disjoint instances of 1/8 in their many global networks. People have > been > building global networks with X.25 and frame relay transport layers for > a lot longer than many realize. And the Internet did not become larger > than these private networks until sometime in 1999 or so. > > > and starting to use addresses like these already (for devices not > capable > > of IPv6) for internal networking (not publically routed). I believe > this > > is generally considered bad citizenship, but I'm interested in why? > > Stupidity. Many people have no historical perspective and think that > the > only users of I{P address space that matter are ISPs. I don't consider > it > bad citizenship if the "adopted" space is not routed publicly, and even > the definition of "publicly" is hard to pin down. If someone wants to > route > such space to a 100 or so ASNs in Russia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizstan, > Uzbekistan, > Afghanistan and China, then I don't think that they are blatantly being > bad Internet citizens. Particularly if they carefully chose whose > addresses > to "adopt". > > > Is there a range most people camp on? > > No. And it would be dumb to do that. Smarter is to use some range > that nobody else is known to be camping on except the registrant > and their network is geographically distant from yours. > > --Michael Dillon > > P.S. At this point, the IPv6 transition has failed, unlike the Y2K > transition, and > some level of crisis is unavoidable. In desperate times, people take > desparate > measures, and "adopting" IP address ranges that are not used by others > in > your locality seems a reasonable thing to do when economic survival is > at > stake. > > P.P.S. I saw a report that someone, somewhere, had analysed some data > which indicates that IP address allocation rates are increasing and > there is > a real possibility that we will runout by the end of this year, 2010. > Does anyone > know where I can find the actual analysis that led to this report?
