1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC

Zartash Uzmi zartash at gmail.com
Sat Jan 23 10:16:58 CST 2010


Just to be technically correct:

Even if you could, you wouldn't do that with 1/8 and 2/8: will need to pair
up 2/8 with 3/8!

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Richard Barnes <richard.barnes at gmail.com>wrote:

> To echo and earlier post, what's the operational importance of
> assigning adjacent /8s?  Are you hoping to aggregate them into a /7?
> --Richard
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:16 AM, William Allen Simpson
> <william.allen.simpson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nick Hilliard wrote:
> >>
> >> On 22/01/2010 13:54, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Why not 36 & 37?
> >>
> >> Random selection to ensure that no RIR can accuse IANA of bias.  See
> >> David's previous post:
> >>
> >> http://blog.icann.org/2009/09/selecting-which-8-to-allocate-to-an-rir/
> >>
> > Because relying on a blog post for policy really meets everybody's
> > definition of rationality.... :-(
> >
> > If you're assigning 2 at the same time, they should be adjacent.
> >
> > The dribbles here and there policy never was particularly satisfying,
> > because it assumes that this was all temporary until the widespread
> > deployment of IPv6.
> >
> >
>
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list