Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: 223.255.255.0/24
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:32:47 -0500 (EST)


On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 bmanning () karoshi com wrote:
      why would an APNIC/AP region specific issue need to be discussed
      on the NANOG list and not the RIPE/AFNOG/et.al. regional ops lists?
      This is a prefix delegated to the APregion and so they should be
      the ones who set the policies for the prefixes they are responsible
      for. I appreciate their willingness to share the outcome of their
      deliberations, but why NAites have any special say in AP policies
      is a bit beyond me.

The question is really whether IANA properly implemented the relevant
RFC's by delagating a block containing a reserved special use address to a
registry without maintaining the previous reservations on those addresses.

Its not up to APNIC how to handle the reserved special use addresses, just
like the other special use addresses in ARIN's space are really outside
of ARIN's scope.  ARIN can't re-assign special use addresses in "its"
space for other purposes. Nor should APNIC or RIPE or LANIC or any other
registry which is assigned a /8 block containing special use addresses.

Its not APNIC bashing.  If the ARIN board got to gether and decided to
assign 128.0.0.0/16 I think folks would be raising questions about ARIN.

IANA should have properly excluded the IANA reserved special use block
from the delegation to APNIC, just like the other reserved special use
blocks are reserved from ARIN's use.



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault