[58034] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Question about 223/8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@karoshi.com)
Tue Apr 29 17:03:45 2003
From: bmanning@karoshi.com
To: jbates@brightok.net (Jack Bates)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: jared@puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch), nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <3EAE2FBB.2040009@brightok.net> from "Jack Bates" at Apr 29, 2003 02:54:35 AM
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>
>
> Jared Mauch wrote:
> >
> > While the issue on the surface appears to be fairly pety, the
> > 223/8 block was assigned to a RIR. 223.255.255/24 is reserved per rfc.
>
>
> And this is why my question. RFC 3330 states that 223.255.255/24 can be
> assigned to a RIR. What gives one RFC weight over another? Is it an
> issue of RFC type or obsoletion status?
>
> -Jack
>
the expectation that many have is that higher numbered RFCs
are generally more current. In this case the folks who put
RFC 3330 out did not do their homework and so were not clear
on the ramifications of delegating 223/8, with its "reserved"
stub. Eventually, that reserved restriction ought to be moot,
but for now, it still is an issue with legacy equipment/code.
Delegating 223/8 at this time was, perhaps, not the brightest
thing they could have done.
--bill
