the joys of non-uniqueness. ULAs are (going to be) your friends. :) back in the day, the IANA was pretty careful. the contractors less so. SRI had the "connected" and "unconnected" databases - duplications abounded and when interconnection occured... renumbering ensued.
this is not a new or even recent problem. It is certainly compounded by multiple actors and lack of clean slate. Yet, I beleive that there will be a desire to "do the right thing" and this will get fixed. It might even lead to better tools and inter-actor releationships. Or it could melt into a pile of goo... --bill On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 06:21:00AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > Of course if it was already assigned when IANA said that (no dates on > > the link above) then maybe the fault is more IANA's for telling another > > RIR that they could allocate an ASN that another RIR already allocated. > > i suspect that, in the erx project, there may have been more than one > case of the iana saying "ok, X now manages this block, excpet of course > for those pieces already allocated by Y and Z." and the latter were not > always well defined or easily learnable, and were not registered > directly with the iana, but other rirs. > > <rant> > > and the data are all buried in whois, which is not well-defined, stats > files, which are not defined, etc. the rirs, in the thrall of nih (you > did know that ripe/ncc invented the bicycle), spent decades not agreeing > on common formats, protocols, or code. this is one result thereof. > testosterone kills, and the community gets the collateral damage. > > randy
