[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
"Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers
On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:54 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> 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
> 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).
Indeed, that does sound simple. Obtaining such a commitment may prove to be
a little more difficult, since it permanently encumbers use of one or more
address blocks. I am happy to ask, however, if there is a strong level of
support to do so. Alternatively, there is valid contact information listed
in WHOIS for US DOD and other commercial /8 address block holders if you
wish to ask one directly.
President and CEO
p.s. Considering that we've collectively allocated the 95%+ of the address
space which was made available outside of DoD's original blocks, and
the DoD additionally returned 2 more /8's for the community (noted here:
may actually have a different perspective us coming back to impair some
of the remaining space they still hold. I'm happy to discuss it, but
wanted to point out the long history and potential different perspective.