Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC

[Zartash Uzmi <zartash () gmail com>]

Just to be technically correct:

Even if you could, you wouldn't do that with 1/8 and 2/8: will need to pair
up 2/8 with 3/8!

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Richard Barnes <richard.barnes () gmail com>wrote:

> To echo and earlier post, what's the operational importance of
> assigning adjacent /8s?  Are you hoping to aggregate them into a /7?
> --Richard
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:16 AM, William Allen Simpson
> <william.allen.simpson () gmail com> wrote:
> > Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > > On 22/01/2010 13:54, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> > > > Why not 36 & 37?
> > >
> > > Random selection to ensure that no RIR can accuse IANA of bias.  See
> > > David's previous post:
> > >
> > > http://blog.icann.org/2009/09/selecting-which-8-to-allocate-to-an-rir/
> > Because relying on a blog post for policy really meets everybody's
> > definition of rationality.... :-(
> >
> > If you're assigning 2 at the same time, they should be adjacent.
> >
> > The dribbles here and there policy never was particularly satisfying,
> > because it assumes that this was all temporary until the widespread
> > deployment of IPv6.