[102610] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 2008.02.20 NANOG 42 IPv4 PTR queries for unallocated space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Feb 21 10:25:35 2008
Cc: "<michael.dillon@bt.com>" <michael.dillon@bt.com>, <nanog@nanog.org>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <DBF9E0CE-0455-475E-9C6B-18A0FE22F651@muada.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:22:28 -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
I know of at least one large telecom provider which is using 100/8.
In my opinion,
this should not be a reason to delay the use of these addresses for a
legitimate
purpose. Rewarding address squatting simply isn't a good thing.
Owen
On Feb 21, 2008, at 1:51 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On 20 feb 2008, at 20:27, <michael.dillon@bt.com> <michael.dillon@bt.com
> > wrote:
>
>>> 2/8, 1/8, 23/8, 5/8, 100/8 is there at #5, which is odd.
>
>> Odd? It's a round number which probably means that more
>> than one person has picked it when they needed to make
>> up an IP address.
>
> It would be interesting to know how much of this space is really
> used for something more or less permanent, and how much is just
> random noise. For instance, I do a training course where people need
> to configure routers, and I use addresses out of 96.0.0.0/8 for
> that, because it has to be clear that we're talking about real
> addresses and not RFC 1918 stuff. Although this doesn't interact
> with the real internet, often, people end up having real addresses
> and also 96.0.0.0/8 addresses on their laptops so they probably
> generate some DNS queries for the 96 range.
>
> Would it be useful for IANA to publish the order in which they're
> going to allocate /8s? That way, it's easier for people to plan
> getting out of the way of real deployment in time.
