[121573] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Barnes)
Fri Jan 22 10:30:34 2010
In-Reply-To: <4B59C13C.4090109@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:30:01 -0500
From: Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com>
To: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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. =A0See
>> 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.
>
>
