I'm confused about the argument I believe that went on not too long ago concerning 223/8. What documentation governs how IANA allocates address space, including special use space? The reason I ask is that I was perusing RFC 3330 and noted that it specifically stated that the basis for the reservation of 223.255.255.0/24 no longer applied and that the block was subject to future allocation to a RIR. Yet there was an argument about it. -Jack
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:31:35PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
I'm confused about the argument I believe that went on not too long ago concerning 223/8. What documentation governs how IANA allocates address space, including special use space?
The reason I ask is that I was perusing RFC 3330 and noted that it specifically stated that the basis for the reservation of 223.255.255.0/24 no longer applied and that the block was subject to future allocation to a RIR. Yet there was an argument about it.
While the issue on the surface appears to be fairly pety, the 223/8 block was assigned to a RIR. 223.255.255/24 is reserved per rfc. The RIR in question did not want to receive a block of address space that currently was documented as 'reserved' in 'current' rfc documents. If the iana worked with ietf/rfc-editor to promptly issue updated rfc documents i suspect there would have been little/no issue with the block, but this process did not happen and the RIR in question wished to return the space until the issue was resolved. Seems small, but lets say that you were a RIR and received 10/8, i'm sure you can clearly see what issues may transpire if it's still documented as non-publically-routable space. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Jared Mauch wrote:
While the issue on the surface appears to be fairly pety, the 223/8 block was assigned to a RIR. 223.255.255/24 is reserved per rfc.
And this is why my question. RFC 3330 states that 223.255.255/24 can be assigned to a RIR. What gives one RFC weight over another? Is it an issue of RFC type or obsoletion status? -Jack
Jared Mauch wrote:
While the issue on the surface appears to be fairly pety, the 223/8 block was assigned to a RIR. 223.255.255/24 is reserved per rfc.
And this is why my question. RFC 3330 states that 223.255.255/24 can be assigned to a RIR. What gives one RFC weight over another? Is it an issue of RFC type or obsoletion status?
-Jack
the expectation that many have is that higher numbered RFCs are generally more current. In this case the folks who put RFC 3330 out did not do their homework and so were not clear on the ramifications of delegating 223/8, with its "reserved" stub. Eventually, that reserved restriction ought to be moot, but for now, it still is an issue with legacy equipment/code. Delegating 223/8 at this time was, perhaps, not the brightest thing they could have done. --bill
participants (3)
-
bmanning@karoshi.com
-
Jack Bates
-
Jared Mauch