I wonder if ATT will be returning some of those /16 and /15 allocations it has in return for the /12 - http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/SIS-80/nets How does one suddenly justify needing 1,000,000 more IP addresses (explosive expected growth in the next couple months?) --Blake Owen DeLong wrote the following on 8/23/2012 1:29 AM:
AT&T should just be glad there was a /12 for them to get.
That isn't going to be true for much longer.
If you are counting on an IPv4 free pool to run your business next year, you are making a bad bet.
Owen
On Aug 22, 2012, at 22:54 , "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis@ocosa.com> wrote:
My apologies again, I saw it as 127.0.0.0. and not 172.0.0.0.
I've been working long hours last couple nights. Yeah you are probably right, since they to pulled that one very close to RFC1918.
http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4-stats/allocated-arin.html
I would hate to be AT&T for this IP allocation. Heck, I would simple push more IPv6 if I were them.
-----Original Message----- From: Dan White [mailto:dwhite@olp.net] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:37 AM To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr. Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated
You can do a whois search at arin.net to see the allocation.
172.0.0.0/12 is often confused with the private 172.16.0.0/12 address space, which I would consider a 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' allocation.
I also noticed a couple of subnets in that range showing up in the weekly Cidr reports, beginning in July.
On 08/23/12 00:29 -0500, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
Dan,
Can you provide a link to support this? If this is true, I wonder how this will work.
Otis -----Original Message----- From: Dan White [mailto:dwhite@olp.net] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated
172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet Services. -- Dan White