North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
- From: Christopher L. Morrow
- Date: Thu Mar 24 11:06:07 2005
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Daniel Senie wrote:
> At 10:06 AM 3/24/2005, Jon Lewis wrote:
> >On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > In any case, it is not important how the message
> > > > gets communicated to ARIN. What is important is for
> > > > network operators to *TELL* ARIN what they need ARIN
> > >
> > > is arin the problem here? or are 'lazy'/'dumb'/'mistaken'/'poorly
> > > informed' admins the problem?
> >Lazy/misguided/ex admins / downsized networks are the problem. ARIN is in
> >a unique position to be able to do something to at least try to mitigate
> >the problem without too much effort before handing "damaged IP space" out
> >to members. The current situation frustrates those who don't know what to
> >do, and encourages them to look elsewhere for the IP space they need.
> I think it's important to remember the "lazy/dumb/mistaken/poorly informed"
> folk alluded to above are NOT the ones receiving IP address space, but
> people elsewhere in (and all over) the world.
of course, I should have been more clear, sorry :)
> The idea of ARIN temporarily lighting address space in any new block, and
> providing a test target is reasonable, relatively inexpensive and sensible.
this requires the above lazy/dumb/mistaken/poorly-informed masses to want
to hit the targets as well, eh? :(
> Paying members of ARIN are today negativelty impacted by receiving
> assignments that remain in filters. It clearly makes little sense for those
> receiving address space to each have to expend significant time and effort
> to turn the address space into usable space. As such, the paying customers
> & members should consider requesting this be a function that could be best
> handled centrally by ARIN.
I think I'm unclear how having arin/ripe/apnic/iana/god put up
pingable/http-able/ftp-able ips from 'new' blocks is going to help, when
the problem is at the far-end, and the 'user' or 'admin' there is one of
the: "lazy/dumb/mistaken/poorly-informed" who already doesn't care enough
to keep their filters up to date. Additionally, there is still the
distinction between firewall/acl blocks and 'route filter' blocks. They
may have the same effect in the end, but the target for who might have to
repair that problem is likely different.