leo,
This is done, you should see it propogating.
regards,
darren
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:58:30AM -0800, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2010, at 7:16, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> http://blog.icann.org/2009/09/selecting-which-8-to-allocate-to-an-rir/
> >>
> > Bec
On Jan 21, 2010, at 9:40 PM, Joe Provo wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 05:13:39PM -0800, George Bonser wrote:
> [snip]
>> Some of that water is dirtier than the rest. I wouldn't want to be the
>> person who gets 1.2.3.0/24
>
> Yeah, I encountered some lovely wireless hotspots that use "visit
>
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 wrote:
> To echo and earlier post, what's the operational importance of
> assigning adjacent /8s? Are you hoping to aggreg
> As of two days ago, there were quantifiable problems associated with
> 13 out of the 26 remaining /8s.
i love quantification! please send detail.
otherwise, this thread seems a bit content-free and pontification heavy
to me
randy
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Brian Dickson
wrote:
> I think it would certainly be useful, both diagnostically and operationally,
> for IANA and the RIR's to *actually announce* the unused space, and run
> either or
> both of tar-pits and honey-pots on those, for just such a reason - to gauge
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Brian Dickson
wrote:
> I think it would certainly be useful, both diagnostically and operationally,
> for IANA and the RIR's to *actually announce* the unused space, and run
> either or
> both of tar-pits and honey-pots on those, for just such a reason - to gauge
On 22 Jan 2010, at 11:52, Joe Abley wrote:
>>
>> I think it would certainly be useful, both diagnostically and operationally,
>> for IANA and the RIR's to *actually announce* the unused space, and run
>> either or
>> both of tar-pits and honey-pots on those, for just such a reason - to gauge
>>
On 2010-01-22, at 14:49, Brian Dickson wrote:
> I think it would certainly be useful, both diagnostically and operationally,
> for IANA and the RIR's to *actually announce* the unused space, and run
> either or
> both of tar-pits and honey-pots on those, for just such a reason - to gauge
> prob
recipients (e.g. in the developing nations, where adding "pain" would really be
unusually cruel.)
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:n...@foobar.org]
Sent: January-22-10 3:09 PM
To: Brian Dickson
Cc: William Allen Simpson; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 1/8 and
From the traffic generated by all the port-scanning and other
similarly-useless packets, one could argue that all of unicast v4 space
is tainted at this point.*
Maybe we should be using that as a reason to switch to v6.
Matthew Kaufman
*If you don't believe me, point a /16 or larger down a fr
In a message written on Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 07:09:00PM +, Nick Hilliard
wrote:
> What portion of 1/8 is untainted? Or any other /8 that the IANA has
> identified as having problems? How do you measure it? How do you ensure
I, personally, am quite skeptical that any of the /8's are tainted
On 22/01/2010 16:32, Brian Dickson wrote:
> So, if the tainted *portions* of problem /8's are set aside
What portion of 1/8 is untainted? Or any other /8 that the IANA has
identified as having problems? How do you measure it? How do you ensure
that other /8s which don't _appear_ to have problem
On Jan 22, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Would it make sense for the RIRs to just carve out the bad parts of
> the blocks, instead of IANA? Under current policy, would reserving
> "bad" bits make it more difficult for an RIR to get additional
> allocations?
Under existing policies, th
In a message written on Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:32:30PM -0400, Brian Dickson
wrote:
> So, if the tainted *portions* of problem /8's are set aside, you end up with
> sets of varying
> sizes of /N. E.g. if there is one /24 that is a problem, you set that aside,
> and end up with
> a set that consi
Would it make sense for the RIRs to just carve out the bad parts of
the blocks, instead of IANA? Under current policy, would reserving
"bad" bits make it more difficult for an RIR to get additional
allocations?
--Richard
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2010, at 8:
On 22 Jan 2010, at 7:16, William Allen Simpson wrote:
[...]
>> 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 :-(
It's not a policy, it's an explanation of the reasoni
On 22 Jan 2010, at 8:32, Brian Dickson wrote:
[...]
> The granularity of allocations is arbitrary, and when scraping the bottom of
> the barrel,
> where there are known problems, it may time to get more granular.
>
> There's really no difference in managing a handful of /N's rather than /8's,
Nick Hilliard wrote:
Someone else mentioned that we are now scraping the bottom of the ipv4
barrel. As of two days ago, there were quantifiable problems associated
with 13 out of the 26 remaining /8s. 12 of these are known to be used to
one extent or another on internet connected networks, and a
On 22/01/2010 15:16, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Because relying on a blog post for policy really meets everybody's
> definition of rationality :-(
What works then? What happened to rough consensus and running code?
> If you're assigning 2 at the same time, they should be adjacent.
>
> T
In the absence of global policy on this matter, the RIRs and IANA
try to work together in the tradition of the Internet in order to
keep things running as smoothly as possible. This is a *feature*
not a bug.
If you want formal policy in this area, it's very easy to submit a
proposal for global
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
wrote:
> Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>
>> On 22/01/2010 13:54, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>>>
>>> Why n
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:16:12AM -0500,
William Allen Simpson wrote
a message of 17 lines which said:
>> http://blog.icann.org/2009/09/selecting-which-8-to-allocate-to-an-rir/
>>
> Because relying on a blog post for policy
I'm fairly certain that it is because the ICANN staff can post on i
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 polic
On 22/01/2010 13:54, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Also, 27/8 is clearly in the middle of a group of North American military
> assignments. So at the very least, these aren't very CIDR'ish.
Is that operationally relevant to the /8 assignment process?
> Why not 36 & 37?
Random selection to ensu
* William Allen Simpson:
> Bill Stewart wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:13 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>>> Some of that water is dirtier than the rest. I wouldn't want to be the
>>> person who gets 1.2.3.0/24
>>
>> I'd guess that 1.1.1.1 and 2.2.2.2 are probably much more widely used.
>> At lea
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:54:37AM -0500,
William Allen Simpson wrote
a message of 20 lines which said:
> I agree that 1/8 was probably about the *last* that should have been
> allocated. It's particularly frustrating that they made two
> assignments at the same time, but not to adjacent rout
On 01/22/2010 02:54 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Why not 36 & 37?
please refer to
http://blog.icann.org/2009/09/selecting-which-8-to-allocate-to-an-rir/
cheers,
raoul
--
DI (FH) Raoul Bhatia M.Sc. email.
Bill Stewart wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:13 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Some of that water is dirtier than the rest. I wouldn't want to be the
person who gets 1.2.3.0/24
I'd guess that 1.1.1.1 and 2.2.2.2 are probably much more widely used.
At least 1.1.1.0/24 should be reserved by IANA or
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:13 PM, George Bonser wrote:
> Some of that water is dirtier than the rest. I wouldn't want to be the
> person who gets 1.2.3.0/24
I'd guess that 1.1.1.1 and 2.2.2.2 are probably much more widely used.
At least 1.1.1.0/24 should be reserved by IANA or somebody.
--
--
Anton Kapela wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
>> I thought there was some other group that had been squatting in 1/8,
>> something about radio and peer to peer...but not AnoNet (at least that name
>> was totally unfamiliar)...but this was all I could find with a quic
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Neil Harris wrote:
I thought there was some other group that had been squatting in 1/8,
something about radio and peer to peer...but not AnoNet (at least that name
was totally unfamiliar)...but this was all I could find with a quick
google.
This?
http://lists.arin.net/p
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 05:13:39PM -0800, George Bonser wrote:
[snip]
> Some of that water is dirtier than the rest. I wouldn't want to be the
> person who gets 1.2.3.0/24
Yeah, I encountered some lovely wireless hotspots that use "visit
http://1.1.1.1/ to log out". Seem some vendors encourage th
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 08:22:57PM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, George Bonser wrote:
>
>> Some of that water is dirtier than the rest. I wouldn't want to be the
>> person who gets 1.2.3.0/24
>
> The whole /8 should be fun.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AnoNet
>
> To avoid add
On 22/01/10 01:22, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, George Bonser wrote:
Some of that water is dirtier than the rest. I wouldn't want to be the
person who gets 1.2.3.0/24
The whole /8 should be fun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AnoNet
To avoid addressing conflict with the internet it
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> I thought there was some other group that had been squatting in 1/8,
> something about radio and peer to peer...but not AnoNet (at least that name
> was totally unfamiliar)...but this was all I could find with a quick google.
http://en.wikipedi
On Jan 21, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> In the event that 1.0.0.0/8 is assigned by IANA, anoNet could
> move to the next unassigned /8, though such an event is unlikely, as
> 1.0.0.0/8 has been reserved since September 1981.
Sounds like a non-winning strategy to me. It's just a (random) m
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, George Bonser wrote:
Some of that water is dirtier than the rest. I wouldn't want to be the
person who gets 1.2.3.0/24
The whole /8 should be fun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AnoNet
To avoid addressing conflict with the internet itself, the range
1.0.0.0/8 is used. T
> -Original Message-
> From: Durand, Alain [mailto:alain_dur...@cable.comcast.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:58 PM
> To: Bulger, Tim; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC
>
> Who said the water at the bottom of the barrel of IPv
Ricky Beam wrote:
> But it's not all bad. It's assigned to APNIC, so a lot of people will
> gladly continue blocking it.
>
Yeah cause seriously, who does business in Asia or the Pacifc...
[mailto:leo.veg...@icann.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:37 PM
> > To: Leo Vegoda
> > Subject: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation
> > of two /8 IPv4 blocks t
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:47:39 -0500, Bulger, Tim
wrote:
Having 1/8 allocated cannot be a blessing... There must be thousands of
underskilled in the wild with stuff configured for 1/8. It's like a
magnet for unwanted noise traffic.
I was thinking the same thing. I know of many installations w
lled in the wild with stuff configured for 1/8. It's like a
> magnet for unwanted noise traffic.
>
> -Tim
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Leo Vegoda [mailto:leo.veg...@icann.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:37 PM
> To: Leo Vegoda
> Subject: 1/8 and 27/
37 PM
To: Leo Vegoda
Subject: 1/8 and 27/8 allocated to APNIC
Hi,
The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation
of two /8 IPv4 blocks to APNIC in January 2010: 1/8 and
27/8. You can find the IANA IPv4 registry at:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-ad
Hi,
The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation
of two /8 IPv4 blocks to APNIC in January 2010: 1/8 and
27/8. You can find the IANA IPv4 registry at:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/
44 matches
Mail list logo
