2008.02.20 NANOG 42 IPv4 PTR queries for unallocated space

Thu Feb 21 15:22:28 UTC 2008

I know of at least one large telecom provider which is using 100/8.   
In my opinion,
this should not be a reason to delay the use of these addresses for a  
legitimate
purpose.  Rewarding address squatting simply isn't a good thing.

Owen

On Feb 21, 2008, at 1:51 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

>
> On 20 feb 2008, at 20:27, <michael.dillon at bt.com> <michael.dillon at bt.com 
> > wrote:
>
>>> 2/8, 1/8, 23/8, 5/8, 100/8 is there at #5, which is odd.
>
>> Odd? It's a round number which probably means that more
>> than one person has picked it when they needed to make
>> up an IP address.
>
> It would be interesting to know how much of this space is really  
> used for something more or less permanent, and how much is just  
> random noise. For instance, I do a training course where people need  
> to configure routers, and I use addresses out of 96.0.0.0/8 for  
> that, because it has to be clear that we're talking about real  
> addresses and not RFC 1918 stuff. Although this doesn't interact  
> with the real internet, often, people end up having real addresses  
> and also 96.0.0.0/8 addresses on their laptops so they probably  
> generate some DNS queries for the 96 range.
>
> Would it be useful for IANA to publish the order in which they're  
> going to allocate /8s? That way, it's easier for people to plan  
> getting out of the way of real deployment in time.