APNIC returning 223/8 to IANA
Philip Smith
pfs at cisco.com
Mon Mar 17 07:52:58 UTC 2003
At 01:31 17/03/2003 -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
> You're missing the issue that when you are assigned space,
>if part of it is already reserved that should be clearly spelled out.
>
> When you get a /8, you expect it to be fully usable. The
>APNIC posture here seems to make sense to me that its an issue
>that needs to be resolved. using one of the other currently
>reserved /8's while that issue plays out seems quite logical
>to me.
Jared, you hit the nail on the head. Anyone who was at the APNIC Policy SIG
meeting during APRICOT 2003 last month will have heard the fairly lengthy
discussion around 223/8.
While I don't agree that the block should be handed back as it makes a
fairly substantial mountain out of what is a tiny molehill, several pointed
out the above issue, that 223/8 is not fully usable, and that there is no
documentation stating that 223.255.255.0/24 is actually usable. Or not
usable. RFC3330 (informational) states what it used to be for, but the
actual paragraph discussing 223.255.255.0/24 contradicts itself, and is of
no help.
My disappointment was that everyone who could solve, or at least take
ownership of the problem was in the room at the time. That they chose not
to was sad, much to the bewilderment of the attendees I spoke to
afterwards. Had the problem been solved there and then, it would have
demonstrated clear progress in improving RIR/IETF cooperation.
And so the address space has been returned. :-(
philip
--
More information about the NANOG
mailing list