[56878] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: APNIC returning 223/8 to IANA
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bdragon@gweep.net)
Thu Mar 20 14:52:21 2003
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:51:45 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <200303171501.h2HF1Wv25211@karoshi.com> from "bmanning@karoshi.com" at Mar 17, 2003 07:01:32 AM
From: <bdragon@gweep.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> Its not quite that simple folks. The reason this particular
> block is reserved has some real technical merit, while the 69/8
> muddle is strictly due to ISP negligence.
>
> RFC 3330 got it wrong. Anyone remember the "Martian List"
> from the 1970-1990's? Trying to use the all-ones or all-zeros
> network for real traffic is not possible. Pre CIDR it was
> not possible to use 192.0.0.0/24 or 192.0.255.0/24. (the same was
> true on -every- network boundary) With CIDR,
> those boundaries moved to 1.0.0.0/24 and 223.255.255.0/24
> e.g. only two reservered blocks instead of hundreds.
>
> Simply having someonechange a DB entry or create an RFC will
> not affect the installed silicon base. Won't work.
> APNIC is on the moral highground here. They received damaged
> goods without notification. IANA needs better technical clue.
>
> --bill
Unless I'm mistaken, there is no technical issue with using the
All-0's or All-1's classful networks. In fact, several of those networks
are in use.
0.0.0.0/8 "this" network (all-zeros A)
127.0.0.0/8 loopback network (all-ones A)
128.0.0.0/16 reserved but unused (all-zeros B)
191.255.0.0/16 reserved but unused (all-ones B)
192.0.0.0/24 reserved but unused (all-zeros C)
223.255.255.0/24 reserved but unused (all-ones C)
As with 0/8 and 127/8, the other 4 networks could certainly be
designated for some use, including "normal" end-users. This type of
end-user usage would even continue to work with old classful gear.
