nanog mailing list archives
Re: 223.255.255.0/24
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:32:47 -0500 (EST)
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 bmanning () karoshi com wrote:
why would an APNIC/AP region specific issue need to be discussed on the NANOG list and not the RIPE/AFNOG/et.al. regional ops lists? This is a prefix delegated to the APregion and so they should be the ones who set the policies for the prefixes they are responsible for. I appreciate their willingness to share the outcome of their deliberations, but why NAites have any special say in AP policies is a bit beyond me.
The question is really whether IANA properly implemented the relevant RFC's by delagating a block containing a reserved special use address to a registry without maintaining the previous reservations on those addresses. Its not up to APNIC how to handle the reserved special use addresses, just like the other special use addresses in ARIN's space are really outside of ARIN's scope. ARIN can't re-assign special use addresses in "its" space for other purposes. Nor should APNIC or RIPE or LANIC or any other registry which is assigned a /8 block containing special use addresses. Its not APNIC bashing. If the ARIN board got to gether and decided to assign 128.0.0.0/16 I think folks would be raising questions about ARIN. IANA should have properly excluded the IANA reserved special use block from the delegation to APNIC, just like the other reserved special use blocks are reserved from ARIN's use.
Current thread:
- 223.255.255.0/24 bdragon (Feb 19)
- Re: 223.255.255.0/24 Stephen J. Wilcox (Feb 22)
- Re: 223.255.255.0/24 bdragon (Feb 23)
- Re: 223.255.255.0/24 Simon Lyall (Feb 23)
- Re: 223.255.255.0/24 Anne Lord (Feb 23)
- Re: 223.255.255.0/24 Randy Bush (Feb 23)
- Re: 223.255.255.0/24 bmanning (Feb 23)
- Re: 223.255.255.0/24 Sean Donelan (Feb 23)
- Re: 223.255.255.0/24 bdragon (Feb 23)
- Re: 223.255.255.0/24 Stephen J. Wilcox (Feb 22)