[44021] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 214/8 and 215/8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Philip Smith)
Wed Oct 31 20:46:38 2001
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011101113944.00a85f50@localhost>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 11:44:50 +1000
To: smd@clock.org (Sean M. Doran)
From: Philip Smith <pfs@cisco.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20011031221547.84945C7901@cesium.clock.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I seem to remember that they were exchanged for 49/8 and 50/8. Seems a bit
odd that this was done, and I'd love to know what the technical or
operational or political advantage was. Maybe the IANA folks can shed more
light?
From http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space:
049/8 Joint Technical Command May 94
Returned to IANA Mar 98
050/8 Joint Technical Command May 94
Returned to IANA Mar 98
...
214/8 US-DOD Mar 98
215/8 US-DOD Mar 98
philip
--
At 14:15 31/10/2001 -0800, Sean M. Doran wrote:
>Hi -
>
> 214/8 and 215/8 seem to have been allocated to the U.S. DoD in ca. 1998.
>There does seem to be a few sizeable announcements (which overlap a few
>not-so-sizable ones), but I have to wonder if anyone can explain the
>grounds on which they were allocated these two /8s, and which body
>did the allocation. Anyone?
>
> Sean.
