Question on 7.0.0.0/8

Sun Apr 15 22:13:09 UTC 2007

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>> We checked with IANA, ARIN, and the US DoD regarding 7.0.0.0/8.  We  
>> were told that this netblock should not see the light of day,
> 
> 10/8 used to be a DoD address block, but it was also used exclusively in
> 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 do
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 311 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20070415/75b817e4/attachment.sig>