North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: APNIC returning 223/8 to IANA

  • From: Philip Smith
  • Date: Mon Mar 17 02:56:08 2003 
At 01:31 17/03/2003 -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:


        You're missing the issue that when you are assigned space,
if part of it is already reserved that should be clearly spelled out.

        When you get a /8, you expect it to be fully usable.  The
APNIC posture here seems to make sense to me that its an issue
that needs to be resolved.  using one of the other currently
reserved /8's while that issue plays out seems quite logical
to me.
Jared, you hit the nail on the head. Anyone who was at the APNIC Policy SIG meeting during APRICOT 2003 last month will have heard the fairly lengthy discussion around 223/8.

While I don't agree that the block should be handed back as it makes a fairly substantial mountain out of what is a tiny molehill, several pointed out the above issue, that 223/8 is not fully usable, and that there is no documentation stating that 223.255.255.0/24 is actually usable. Or not usable. RFC3330 (informational) states what it used to be for, but the actual paragraph discussing 223.255.255.0/24 contradicts itself, and is of no help.

My disappointment was that everyone who could solve, or at least take ownership of the problem was in the room at the time. That they chose not to was sad, much to the bewilderment of the attendees I spoke to afterwards. Had the problem been solved there and then, it would have demonstrated clear progress in improving RIR/IETF cooperation.

And so the address space has been returned. :-(

philip
--