[155800] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Otis L. Surratt, Jr.)
Thu Aug 23 01:54:15 2012
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 00:54:18 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20120823053654.GB6614@dan.olp.net>
From: "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis@ocosa.com>
To: "Dan White" <dwhite@olp.net>, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>,
<a.slastenov@gmail.com>, <valdis@vt.edu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
My apologies again, I saw it as 127.0.0.0. and not 172.0.0.0.
I've been working long hours last couple nights. Yeah you are probably =
right, since they to pulled that one very close to RFC1918.
http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4-stats/allocated-arin.html
I would hate to be AT&T for this IP allocation. Heck, I would simple =
push more IPv6 if I were them.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan White [mailto:dwhite@olp.net]=20
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:37 AM
To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated
You can do a whois search at arin.net to see the allocation.
172.0.0.0/12 is often confused with the private 172.16.0.0/12 address
space, which I would consider a 'scraping the bottom of the barrel'
allocation.
I also noticed a couple of subnets in that range showing up in the =
weekly
Cidr reports, beginning in July.
On 08/23/12=A000:29=A0-0500, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
>Dan,
>
>Can you provide a link to support this?
>If this is true, I wonder how this will work.
>
>Otis
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan White [mailto:dwhite@olp.net]
>Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated
>
>172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet
>Services.
--=20
Dan White
