On 2/8/2011 7:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
It doesn't have to be a public network to need globally unique addresses.
There is NO policy requirement to use NAT or RFC-1918 for private networks.
Just a suggestion that folks be considerate of the community where they can.
I'll bet most of them woul
On Feb 8, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
>
>
>> Touché! That could theoretically happen. I think Apple should buy HPQDEC
>> just so they can announce 16/7 :-)
>>
>> None of the RIR blocks are going to be routed that way on purpose, though :-)
>>
>> -Randy
>>
>>
> I agree. Many o
Touché! That could theoretically happen. I think Apple should buy HPQDEC just
so they can announce 16/7 :-)
None of the RIR blocks are going to be routed that way on purpose, though :-)
-Randy
I agree. Many of those corporations would have a hard time justifying
an entire /8, even IBM.
- Original Message -
> My guesses as to who gets what:
>
> 102/8 - APNIC
> 103/8 - LACNIC
> 104/8 - AfriNIC
> 179/8 - RIPE NCC
> 185/8 - ARIN
>
I couldn't have been more wrong :-)
I guess alphabetical order won rather than neighboring blocks :-)
-Randy
On 2 feb 2011, at 0:39, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>>> That's how I would do it. With the exception of LACNIC, each one
>>> neighbors a block that is already allocated to that RIR.
>> But if they wanted to do that, why give 106/8 to APNIC?
> I assume you mean 102/8
No, I was talking about monday's
On Feb 1, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> My suspicion is that IANA is playing a game of battleship with the RIRs and
> thursday we'll see who's won. Colored in for your convenience:
IANA instituted a variation of RFC 2777 some time ago to do /8 allocations to
the RIRs. I'd be
On Feb 1, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Randy Carpenter wrote:
>> Touché! That could theoretically happen. I think Apple should buy HPQDEC
>> just so they can announce 16/7 :-)
>
> Nah, one should buy the other just so they can hand over a /7 to APNIC.
>
Neither of them could do
Benson Schliesser wrote:
On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:10 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Nah, one should buy the other just so they can hand over a /7 to APNIC.
How would they justify that to their shareholders?
Free advertising, increased goodwill? ;-)
--
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
htt
On Feb 1, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Leen Besselink wrote:
>
>> Doesn't really matter who gets what, because no one is going to route
>> anything larger than a /8 anyway, particularly the RIR allocations. Just
>> kinda fun to think about :-)
>>
>> -Randy
>>
>>
> How about when HP/Compay/DEC buys Ap
On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:10 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Randy Carpenter wrote:
>> Touché! That could theoretically happen. I think Apple should buy HPQDEC
>> just so they can announce 16/7 :-)
>
> Nah, one should buy the other just so they can hand over a /7 to APNIC.
How would they justify tha
Randy Carpenter wrote:
Touché! That could theoretically happen. I think Apple should buy HPQDEC just
so they can announce 16/7 :-)
Nah, one should buy the other just so they can hand over a /7 to APNIC.
--
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of
- Original Message -
> > Doesn't really matter who gets what, because no one is going to
> > route anything larger than a /8 anyway, particularly the RIR
> > allocations. Just kinda fun to think about :-)
> >
> > -Randy
> >
> >
> How about when HP/Compay/DEC buys Apple or the other way arou
> Doesn't really matter who gets what, because no one is going to route
> anything larger than a /8 anyway, particularly the RIR allocations. Just
> kinda fun to think about :-)
>
> -Randy
>
>
How about when HP/Compay/DEC buys Apple or the other way around ? ;-)
They could do so in theory anyw
- Original Message -
> > Doesn't really matter who gets what
>
> but conjecturebation is a key role of this mailing list
I literally LOLed at that. That single word more succinctly describes a concept
than most I have seen.
> > because no one is going to route anything larger than a /8
> Doesn't really matter who gets what
but conjecturebation is a key role of this mailing list
> because no one is going to route anything larger than a /8 anyway,
i have seen /7s routed. some folk on this list will remember an
exciting day back in about 2000.
randy
- Original Message -
> On 1 feb 2011, at 23:33, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>
> > That's how I would do it. With the exception of LACNIC, each one
> > neighbors a block that is already allocated to that RIR.
>
> But if they wanted to do that, why give 106/8 to APNIC?
I assume you mean 102/8,
On 1 feb 2011, at 23:33, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> That's how I would do it. With the exception of LACNIC, each one neighbors a
> block that is already allocated to that RIR.
But if they wanted to do that, why give 106/8 to APNIC?
My suspicion is that IANA is playing a game of battleship with th
My guesses as to who gets what:
102/8 - APNIC
103/8 - LACNIC
104/8 - AfriNIC
179/8 - RIPE NCC
185/8 - ARIN
That's how I would do it. With the exception of LACNIC, each one neighbors a
block that is already allocated to that RIR.
And in the case of AfriNIC, RIPC, and ARIN, they would make an agg
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Brian Christopher Raaen wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 01:41:21 pm Rodrick Brown wrote:
>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone 4.
>>
>>
On Feb 1, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Brian Christopher Raaen wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 01:41:21 pm Rodrick Brown wrote:
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone 4.
>
> Not quite, I still show 102/8, 103/8, 104/8, 179/8, and 185/
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Brian Christopher Raaen
wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 01:41:21 pm Rodrick Brown wrote:
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone 4.
>
> Not quite, I still show 102/8, 103/8, 104/8, 179/8, and 185/
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, Brian Christopher Raaen wrote:
>
> Not quite, I still show 102/8, 103/8, 104/8, 179/8, and 185/8 as
> "UNALLOCATED". I don't know when the hand out the last 5 /8's policy takes
> affect, but they haven't handed them out yet.
I expect it'll happen on Thursday.
http://www.nro.ne
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Christopher Raaen [mailto:na...@rhemasound.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 10:49 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Last of ipv4 /8's allocated
>
> On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 01:41:21 pm Rodrick Brown wrot
On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 01:41:21 pm Rodrick Brown wrote:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml
>
> Sent from my iPhone 4.
Not quite, I still show 102/8, 103/8, 104/8, 179/8, and 185/8 as
"UNALLOCATED". I don't know when the hand out the last 5 /8's po
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml
Sent from my iPhone 4.
25 matches
Mail list logo
