[158902] in North American Network Operators' Group
=?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Advisory_=97_D=2Droot_is_changing_its_IPv4_address?=
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Antkowiak)
Fri Dec 14 16:33:58 2012
In-Reply-To: <50cb9954.c2b12a0a.0db0.ffffa361SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:33:47 -0600
From: Joe Antkowiak <antkojm1@gmail.com>
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM, <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:
>
> because you would not accept a /30 cutout of the UMD /16 coming
> from some random IX in Singapore. (see Joe Ableys post earlier
> today
> on why legacy nodes are / have renumbered.)
>
> /bill
>
Agreed on the routing (although I wouldn't ever expect to see the subnet
encompassing a root server IP advertised in the wild with..anything even
close to 30 bits), and understood on the minimal/non-existant operational
impacts. Guess I'm just being curious.
