nanog mailing list archives
Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:09:00 +0000
On 22/01/2010 16:32, Brian Dickson wrote:
So, if the tainted *portions* of problem /8's are set aside
What portion of 1/8 is untainted? Or any other /8 that the IANA has identified as having problems? How do you measure it? How do you ensure that other /8s which don't _appear_ to have problems really don't have problems due to invisible use? And if you set aside say, the bits that WIANA or some other organisation has delegated to its stakeholders, are you implicitly acknowledging that they are a legitimate ICANN accredited RIR? Or if some large corporation starts reselling CPE gear which uses IANA-unallocated space on one of their popular devices, does their prior use get them some form of "rights" over that address space? IANA only guarantees that no other RIR has been allocated these /8s according to its registry, and it does not guarantee routability or reachability on the public internet (however much the individuals within IANA / ICANN care about this). If some other organisation has decided to use address space which overlaps with IANA's public registry, then they've created a serious problem for themselves and their customers / stakeholders which could have been avoided in the first place. IPv4 address space is handed out on the basis of need, and there was really no reason for these organisations to squat unallocated space in the first place. IANA hands out /8s. We know that some of these are going to cause serious problems, but life sucks and we just have to deal with what happens. Personally, I feel very sorry for APNIC that they've been allocated 1/8, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. The RIRs agreed a process with IANA and knew what the consequences of that process were. They also appear to have agreed that it was better to use 1/8 than not use it. Their end-users are going to be incensed at the level of problems which this is going to cause. I can only hope that there won't be inter-governmental bun-fights over it. Nick
Current thread:
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC, (continued)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Stephane Bortzmeyer (Jan 22)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Richard Barnes (Jan 22)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Zartash Uzmi (Jan 23)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC John Curran (Jan 22)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Nick Hilliard (Jan 22)
- RE: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Brian Dickson (Jan 22)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Leo Vegoda (Jan 22)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Richard Barnes (Jan 22)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC David Conrad (Jan 22)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Leo Bicknell (Jan 22)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Nick Hilliard (Jan 22)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Leo Bicknell (Jan 22)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Matthew Kaufman (Jan 22)
- RE: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Brian Dickson (Jan 22)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Joe Abley (Jan 22)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Leo Vegoda (Jan 22)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Scott Howard (Jan 22)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Matthew Petach (Jan 22)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Randy Bush (Jan 22)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Leo Vegoda (Jan 22)
- Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC Darren M. Kara (Jan 27)