223.255.255.0/24 has historically been designated as a special-use network as it is the numerically highest Class C network. It is listed in RFC3330 as Reserved but open for possible future allocation. Now that 222/7 has been allocated to APNIC, the question comes up as to whether it is retaining the Reserved designation, or whether APNIC will keep it as reserved. I note that the APNIC whois servers do not denote it as Reserved. I bring this up since many bogon filters include this network for both routing and packet filtering. I have queries out to both APNIC and IANA as to the present status of that network, but I expect IANA will likely defer to APNIC. If it is no longer reserved, I've suggested that RFC3330 be updated to reflect its present status (such as prior-special-use networks are listed). In any event, pending confirmation from APNIC, I suggest folks look over their own bogon filtering. A quick check of Rob's list doesn't have this network specified. I believe that Juniper has a prebuilt bogon list, but I don't recall whether this network is on it or not. I've suggested APNIC send out email to the operations community, but if they don't, I'll send an update with whatever they send me.
I can imagine there is some reason why this was originally reserved thats probably not valid any more.. However seems like a lot of effort to change documents and policies for a single /24 ! Steve On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 bdragon@gweep.net wrote:
223.255.255.0/24 has historically been designated as a special-use network as it is the numerically highest Class C network. It is listed in RFC3330 as Reserved but open for possible future allocation.
Now that 222/7 has been allocated to APNIC, the question comes up as to whether it is retaining the Reserved designation, or whether APNIC will keep it as reserved. I note that the APNIC whois servers do not denote it as Reserved.
I bring this up since many bogon filters include this network for both routing and packet filtering.
I have queries out to both APNIC and IANA as to the present status of that network, but I expect IANA will likely defer to APNIC.
If it is no longer reserved, I've suggested that RFC3330 be updated to reflect its present status (such as prior-special-use networks are listed).
In any event, pending confirmation from APNIC, I suggest folks look over their own bogon filtering. A quick check of Rob's list doesn't have this network specified. I believe that Juniper has a prebuilt bogon list, but I don't recall whether this network is on it or not.
I've suggested APNIC send out email to the operations community, but if they don't, I'll send an update with whatever they send me.
I can imagine there is some reason why this was originally reserved thats probably not valid any more..
It definately is not valid unless someone is living in the stone ages. The network corresponds to the numerically highest Class C network, and is reserved for a potential future classful special purpose (as is 128.0.0.0/16, 191.255.0.0/16, and 192.0.0.0/24). Similar actual special usage is 0.0.0.0/8 and 127.0.0.0/8. So, it relies upon the assumption that there are still pre-cidr systems out there, and that a special-usage /24 would be needed in the future. While I can see some Classful gear still being out there, I doubt any new special-purpose blocks will be needed, and if they are, they will likely just be pulled out from somewhere in the middle.
However seems like a lot of effort to change documents and policies for a single /24 !
I could go either way. I highly doubt we really need to preserve the reserved status, but if it ceases to be reserved, someone really needs to explicitly state that. So far, I've received no response from IANA or APNIC on the subject.
Steve
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 bdragon@gweep.net wrote:
So far, I've received no response from IANA or APNIC on the subject.
http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apops/archive/2003/02/msg00009.html -- Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: simon.lyall@ihug.co.nz Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: simon@darkmere.gen.nz Ihug Ltd, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz
hi Simon, In light of the discussions on this list and subsequent to the posting referenced below, use of this network has been added to the agenda of the Address Policy SIG as an AOB discussion item by the community. http://www.apnic.net/meetings/15/sigs/policy/index.html The Address Policy SIG is part of the 15th APNIC Open Policy Meeting which is taking place in Taiwan this week in conjunction with APRICOT. See: http://www.apnic.net/meetings/index.html The session will be multicast - multicast info will be on the website later today. The outcome of the discussions at the Address Policy SIG will be posted to this list. regards, Anne _____________________________________________________________________ Anne Lord, Manager, Policy Liaison <anne@apnic.net> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre phone: +61 7 3858 3100 http://www.apnic.net fax: +61 7 3858 3199 _____________________________________________________________________ On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Simon Lyall wrote:
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 bdragon@gweep.net wrote:
So far, I've received no response from IANA or APNIC on the subject.
http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apops/archive/2003/02/msg00009.html
The outcome of the discussions at the Address Policy SIG will be posted to this list.
where, one hopes, discussion will continue, yes?
randy
why would an APNIC/AP region specific issue need to be discussed on the NANOG list and not the RIPE/AFNOG/et.al. regional ops lists? This is a prefix delegated to the APregion and so they should be the ones who set the policies for the prefixes they are responsible for. I appreciate their willingness to share the outcome of their deliberations, but why NAites have any special say in AP policies is a bit beyond me. --bill
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 bmanning@karoshi.com wrote:
why would an APNIC/AP region specific issue need to be discussed on the NANOG list and not the RIPE/AFNOG/et.al. regional ops lists? This is a prefix delegated to the APregion and so they should be the ones who set the policies for the prefixes they are responsible for. I appreciate their willingness to share the outcome of their deliberations, but why NAites have any special say in AP policies is a bit beyond me.
The question is really whether IANA properly implemented the relevant RFC's by delagating a block containing a reserved special use address to a registry without maintaining the previous reservations on those addresses. Its not up to APNIC how to handle the reserved special use addresses, just like the other special use addresses in ARIN's space are really outside of ARIN's scope. ARIN can't re-assign special use addresses in "its" space for other purposes. Nor should APNIC or RIPE or LANIC or any other registry which is assigned a /8 block containing special use addresses. Its not APNIC bashing. If the ARIN board got to gether and decided to assign 128.0.0.0/16 I think folks would be raising questions about ARIN. IANA should have properly excluded the IANA reserved special use block from the delegation to APNIC, just like the other reserved special use blocks are reserved from ARIN's use.
participants (7)
-
Anne Lord -
bdragon＠gweep.net -
bmanning＠karoshi.com -
Randy Bush -
Sean Donelan -
Simon Lyall -
Stephen J. Wilcox