[96062] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeroen Massar)
Sun Apr 15 18:15:20 2007
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:13:09 +0100
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: michael.dillon@bt.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B0221C1C@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig78FFC1E4F255B85AC4848043
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
>> We checked with IANA, ARIN, and the US DoD regarding 7.0.0.0/8. We =20
>> were told that this netblock should not see the light of day,
>=20
> 10/8 used to be a DoD address block, but it was also used exclusively i=
n
> their blacker networks and similar non-connected infrastructure. The
> result is that 10/8 was opened up for others to use as well. Could we d=
o
> similar with 7/8?
What problem would that solve instead of reducing a wee tiny bit the
collisions that might occur? Large networks are currently already
established and renumbering them from 10.0.0.0/8 to 7.0.0.0/8 would
still be renumbering. For those networks it is much better to simply get
a block from their RIR and use that and never have collisions.
Also note that Fastweb in Italy is already using 7.0.0.0/8 inside their
network for their customers, who sit behind a NAT.
Greets,
Jeroen
--------------enig78FFC1E4F255B85AC4848043
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
iHUEARECADUFAkYio3UuFIAAAAAAFQAQcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JnamVy
b2VuQHVuZml4Lm9yZwAKCRApqihSMz58I1ykAJ4sVS3ohYIU7K9GDS1sSMq+Nf5c
9wCbBzF58gGmQgjkvRa5tpO+4Yr6iSs=
=n1Jy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig78FFC1E4F255B85AC4848043--
