North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: 126.96.36.199/24 (fwd)
- From: Sean Donelan
- Date: Mon Feb 24 06:31:06 2003
RFC3330 issued in September 2002 does indicate that this address block
is subject to future allocations. But I think people were expecting
something from the IAB/IETF before IANA actually allocated previous
special use reserved address blocks. My understanding was RFC3330 was
written by IANA and published by IANA to document existing practices, not
to change previous practices. Eventually we'll use it.
The simpliest solution is for IANA to inform APNIC that it was an
oversight. The 188.8.131.52/24 network block within the 223/8 CIDR block
assigned to APNIC is still IANA-RESERVED per RFC3330 and previous
practice; and not allocated for APNIC's use at this time.
Its probably easier for APNIC to flag the 184.108.40.206/24 network within
the CIDR block 223/8 as IANA-RESERVED in the APNIC database just like
ARIN does with the other IANA-RESERVED blocks in ARIN's database; rather
than do the ugly CIDR block breaking of 220.127.116.11-18.104.22.168 and
22.214.171.124-223-255.255.255. But that is a decision for APNIC.
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Geoff Huston wrote:
> My interpretation of this is that the IETF, by publishing an RFC with an
> "IANA Considerations" section can nominate that an address block
> declared allocatable under certain criteria, or they can "reserve" the prefix.
> "reserving" in my mind constrains IANA from undertaking any activity
> on this block, and this is the state until the IETF elects to produce
> a successor document with an IANA Considerations section that nominates
> some other status to the block.
> "Reserved" blocks in my opinion cannot be passed to RIRs, or anyone
> else - the IANA cannot do anything with the block other than register its
> reserved status, and this can only be undone by an action of the IETF.
> Hence, my reading of the IANA registry:
> is that this is a flawed implementation of the instructions in RFC 3330,
> and that
> the 126.96.36.199/24 should be listed IDENTICALLY to 188.8.131.52/16
> i.e. its status is actually:
> 223.255.255/25 IANA - Reserved - RFC 3330
> if the IANA is to consistently act upon RFC 3330 (as indeed it should)
> Perhaps the IETF folk on this message should review the RFC and the IANA
> registry and see if they agree with this interpretation, and make their
> as to the accuracy of the registry as it is currently published:
> ("223/8 Feb 03 APNIC (whois.apnic.net)")
> My view is that this block as properly "Reserved", and that the "subject to
> is an addendum that indicates a forward intention of the IETF, but not a
> for any IANA action.
> As my only humble suggestion, perhaps the best thing right now is for the
> APNIC folk
> to refrain from any assignment actions regarding this prefix until the IETF
> folk and the
> IANA sort out this inconsistency in the interpretation of RFC 3330.
> >Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:32:47 -0500 (EST)
> >From: Sean Donelan <>
> >Subject: Re: 184.108.40.206/24
> >On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 email@example.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 220.127.116.11/16 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.