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

Re: Question about 223/8

  • From: bmanning
  • Date: Tue Apr 29 17:05:10 2003 
> 
> 
> 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