[122030] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How polluted is 1/8?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin M. Streiner)
Thu Feb 4 12:13:49 2010
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:26:34 -0500 (EST)
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
To: nanOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <AF80370C-692D-4486-A867-9A323CF04491@daork.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Nathan Ward wrote:
> On 4/02/2010, at 9:19 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
>
>> I would hope that the APNIC would opt not to assign networks that
>> would contain 1.1.1.1 or 1.2.3.4 to customers for exactly that reason.
>> The signal-to-noise ratio for those addresses is likely pretty high.
>> The noise is likely contained on many internal networks for now
>> because a corresponding route doesn't show up in the global routing
>> table at the moment. Once that changes....
>
> 1.1.1/24 and 1.2.3/24 are assigned to APNIC. Unless they release them,
> the general public will not get addresses in these.
Yes, I did see that. What I noticed yesterday was that there were no
prefixes that cover 1.1.1.1 or 1.2.3.4 being announced globally at that
point.
jms
