On 2/10/11 6:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 2/10/2011 8:44 PM, John Curran wrote: >> >> If you'd like to reserve a large block for purposes of LSN >> without any concern of future address conflict, it would be >> best to actually reserve it via community-developed policy. >> > > When there are X /8 networks reserved by the USG, it seems extremely > wasteful to reserve from what little space we have a large block > dedicated to LSN when the USG can give assurances that
reserved and assigned are different. The prefixes are assigned. > 1) We won't route this, so use it > > 2) We won't be giving it back or allocating it to someone else where it > might be routed. > > All proposals concerning reserving a /8 of unallocated space for LSN > purposes was seen as obscene, and many proposals compromised with a /10, > which some feel is too small. I don't think it would hurt for someone > with appropriate connections to ask the USG on the matter. It is, after > all, in the USG's interest and doesn't conflict with their current > practices. Many don't consider it a concern (shown by wide use of DoD > space already deployed), yet some do apparently have concern since there > has been multiple requests for a new allocation for LSN purposes (in the > IETF and in RIRs). > > > Jack >
