[121624] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Zartash Uzmi)
Sat Jan 23 11:17:20 2010
In-Reply-To: <88ac5c711001220730q702468c8w7010b638e7a0ddfc@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:16:58 +0500
From: Zartash Uzmi <zartash@gmail.com>
To: Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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.
> >
> >
>
>
