[John, is 45.127.0.0/16 one of the two blocks they keep, or is it hijacked already? :) ]
On 2010-10-20 17:11, Joel Esler wrote: > Now, if we could get everyone that has these gigantic /8's (or multiple of > them) > that aren't using them to give some back, that'd be great. The problem with that is indeed in that little part about "aren't using them", if even only 50% is in use because one allocated it quite sparsely you won't be able to quickly clean it up and return it. > Thank you interop for setting the example. For delaying the inevitable by what, a month!? It is indeed really great that they took the effort to do so, but then again, they where not always using this prefix, only during events, thus it must have been quite empty. The fact that RIPE's RIS hasn't even seen the prefix announced ever says enough about that part. Doesn't mean it is not being used by other parties though: 45.127.0.0/16 13767 DBANK - DataBank Holdings, Ltd. 2009-04-10 15:43:59 UTC 2010-10-20 14:11:43 UTC One can of course wonder if they are supposed to use that or not. The fact that they do not have reverse DNS delegation for it says quite a bit already of course. Maybe that is one of the two /16's that they are keeping to themselves, seems to be used that way for over a year already. I assume L(3) did proper checking. Greets, Jeroen
