On 2/10/11 5:31 AM, Cutler James R wrote: > > On Feb 10, 2011, at 12:15 AM, Ricky Beam wrote: > >> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:42:14 -0500, Nathan Eisenberg >> <nat...@atlasnetworks.us> wrote: >>> What do you mean, lit up? You mean they're not in the routing >>> tables that you get from your carriers? I'd argue that's no >>> indication of whether they're in use or not. >> >> That's pretty much the definition of "in use". If they don't >> appear in the global routing table, then they aren't being used. I >> cannot send traffic to them; they cannot send traffic to me. >> >> In my recent probe of route servers, I found 22 legacy /8's that >> were partly or completely unused. I'm a little surprised >> ARIN/ICANN thinks it's a waste of time to even try to reclaim >> them. >> >> --Ricky > > This dead horse keep coming back for another beating. The purpose of > a global registry of numbers is to provide a common source for unique > numbers. The definition of "in use" by internet registries does not > require appearance in your routing tables or even in the route > servers. Not only that, the "users" may not even want or need to > exchange traffic with you. > > As a survivor of many network consolidations due to corporate > acquisitions, I have many scars from trying to get separate RFC 1918 > islands to interwork properly. That is the reason that even so-called > private networks need unique IP addressing.
more to the point, every partner / customer integration exercise that involves backend networks has rfc 1918 somewhere, e.g. it's not justd M&A and the pain doesn't go away. intersecticing address assignments for hundreds and potentiatly thousands of hosts when it comes to public cloud integration are a signficant drag on opertations, involve not just nat but additional split horizons and so fourth... This is not just speculation, this stuff happens in our environment virtually every-day. > And now, since IPv6 is actually being deployed and used, there is > absolutely no economic incentive to continue to fight the "IPv4 > addresses not in my routing table are not 'in use'" battle any more. > It is a waste of time and money. > > James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com > > > > > >
