Last of ipv4 /8's allocated
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml Sent from my iPhone 4.
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 policy takes affect, but they haven't handed them out yet. --- Brian Raaen Network Architech
-----Original Message----- From: Brian Christopher Raaen [mailto:nanog@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 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 policy takes affect, but they haven't handed them out yet.
--- Brian Raaen Network Architech
As noted in the "quietly" thread...(very good thread btw), the last 5 will be automatically allocated across the rirs "shortly". ~J
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.net/news/icann-nro-live-stream Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7, DECREASING 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 LATER IN HUMBER AND THAMES. MODERATE OR ROUGH. RAIN THEN FAIR. GOOD.
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Brian Christopher Raaen <nanog@rhemasound.org> 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 185/8 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.
cron is your friend: ~$ wget -O - -q http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt | grep UNALLOCATED | grep '^ * [1234567890]' | wc -l 5
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 185/8 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.
--- Brian Raaen Network Architech
Ceremony is scheduled for 9:30 AM Thursday Local Time in Miami, FL. Owen
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> 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.
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.
--- Brian Raaen Network Architech
Ceremony is scheduled for 9:30 AM Thursday Local Time in Miami, FL.
Owen
I can't wait to see who gets 179/8; I would *so* love to be able to use 179.179.179.179 as a BGP route collection box. ^_^ Perhaps whomever gets it could donate the box to team Cymru? :D Matt
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 aggregatable /7. Not that that really means anything, but is nice for organization ;-) -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | Vice President - IT Services | Red Hat Certified Engineer | First Network Group, Inc. | (800)578-6381, Opt. 1 ---- ----- Original Message -----
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> 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.
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.
--- Brian Raaen Network Architech
Ceremony is scheduled for 9:30 AM Thursday Local Time in Miami, FL.
Owen
I can't wait to see who gets 179/8; I would *so* love to be able to use 179.179.179.179 as a BGP route collection box. ^_^
Perhaps whomever gets it could donate the box to team Cymru? :D
Matt
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 the RIRs and thursday we'll see who's won. Colored in for your convenience: http://www.bgpexpert.com/ianaglobalpool.php
----- 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, and because it is right next to 101/8, which they already have. Doesn't make a nice /7, but there are no other unallocated blocks that are next to any APNIC blocks.
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:
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
----- 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 anyway,
i have seen /7s routed. some folk on this list will remember an exciting day back in about 2000.
Aye. I think there have been worse routing snafus that routing a /7, though. -Randy
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 anyway.
----- 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 around ? ;-)
They could do so in theory anyway.
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
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-virus.html
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 that to their shareholders? (I mean turning over the addresses - the merger itself would be a more challenging question.) -Benson
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/ http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html
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 that. Both are in the ARIN region. Owen
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. They just don't run large public networks any longer. Much of what they do is done on private nets. I would make all of the corporate legacy networks justify their /8's. I'll almost bet none of them can justify them any longer. I worked for a large medical company (30,000 seats) and we didn't use an entire /24. --Curtis
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 of those corporations would have a hard time justifying an entire /8, even IBM. They just don't run large public networks any longer. Much of what they do is done on private nets. I would make all of the corporate legacy networks justify their /8's. I'll almost bet none of them can justify them any longer. I worked for a large medical company (30,000 seats) and we didn't use an entire /24.
--Curtis
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 would have no problem under current policy. They only need to show need for ~8,000,000 hosts, including subnet overhead. If you wanted to, your medical company could have easily justified at least a /17 and probably a /16 under current policy. There's really nothing to be gained from attempting to go after what might be reclaimed from the legacy block holders. EIther they will return their addresses or contribute them to the market or they won't. Attempts at forced reclamation will only make that situation worse and are unlikely to result in any actual reclamation of addresses before the conclusion of protracted and ugly law suits that would be very expensive. Such lawsuits are unlikely to reach conclusion before the need for massive quantities of IPv4 address space is in the past. Owen
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 would have no problem under current policy. They only need to show need for ~8,000,000 hosts, including subnet overhead.
If you wanted to, your medical company could have easily justified at least a /17 and probably a /16 under current policy.
There's really nothing to be gained from attempting to go after what might be reclaimed from the legacy block holders. EIther they will return their addresses or contribute them to the market or they won't. Attempts at forced reclamation will only make that situation worse and are unlikely to result in any actual reclamation of addresses before the conclusion of protracted and ugly law suits that would be very expensive. Such lawsuits are unlikely to reach conclusion before the need for massive quantities of IPv4 address space is in the past.
Owen
Point taken. --C
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 Apple or the other way around ? ;-)
They could do so in theory anyway.
At this point, IPv4 could be done before the regulatory process completed. Owen
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 allocations: http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2011/delegation
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 surprised if they deviated from that process for the last 5 /8s. Regards, -drc
participants (15)
-
Benson Schliesser -
Brian Christopher Raaen -
Christopher Morrow -
Curtis Maurand -
David Conrad -
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
Jeroen van Aart -
Justin Horstman -
Leen Besselink -
Matthew Petach -
Owen DeLong -
Randy Bush -
Randy Carpenter -
Rodrick Brown -
Tony Finch