I know of at least one large telecom provider which is using 100/8. In my opinion, this should not be a reason to delay the use of these addresses for a legitimate purpose. Rewarding address squatting simply isn't a good thing. Owen On Feb 21, 2008, at 1:51 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 20 feb 2008, at 20:27, <michael.dillon@bt.com> <michael.dillon@bt.com
wrote:
2/8, 1/8, 23/8, 5/8, 100/8 is there at #5, which is odd.
Odd? It's a round number which probably means that more than one person has picked it when they needed to make up an IP address.
It would be interesting to know how much of this space is really used for something more or less permanent, and how much is just random noise. For instance, I do a training course where people need to configure routers, and I use addresses out of 96.0.0.0/8 for that, because it has to be clear that we're talking about real addresses and not RFC 1918 stuff. Although this doesn't interact with the real internet, often, people end up having real addresses and also 96.0.0.0/8 addresses on their laptops so they probably generate some DNS queries for the 96 range.
Would it be useful for IANA to publish the order in which they're going to allocate /8s? That way, it's easier for people to plan getting out of the way of real deployment in time.