r.hyunseog at ieee.org
Sun Jan 15 09:43:24 CST 2012
Similar to 126.96.36.199/8 case, which was allocated to APNIC last year or so...
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:47 AM, <bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 06:36:12AM -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> > From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi.com at nanog.org Sun Jan 15 02:02:00 2012
>> > Subject: Re: Whois 172/12
>> > From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick at ianai.net>
>> > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 02:58:11 -0500
>> > To: NANOG list <nanog at nanog.org>
>> > Read RFC1918.
>> > Likely a machine on his local network (i.e. behind the same NAT box) is hitting him.
>> I'v read RFC-1918. I cannot find *any* reference to 172.0/12, as the OP
>> was asking about. 172.16/12, yes. but not 172.0/12. Can you please clarify
>> your advice?
> so as a stylistic point, 172/12 is supposed to equal 188.8.131.52/12?
> if memory serves, back in the day, there were records of allocations in this space,
> pre-ARIN. When RFC 1918 was settled on, there were some folks blocking 184.108.40.206/8
> so there was talk of relocating those folks into other space.
More information about the NANOG