nanog mailing list archives
Re: 214/8 and 215/8
From: Joe Provo <joe.provo () rcn com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 09:51:53 -0500
On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 11:44:50AM +1000, Philip Smith wrote:
I seem to remember that they were exchanged for 49/8 and 50/8. Seems a bit odd that this was done, and I'd love to know what the technical or operational or political advantage was. Maybe the IANA folks can shed more light?
Obvious immediate advantage: bypass A-space filters. They probably also have swampy /24s that need visibility as such but couldn't be renumbered until after having non-A-space. -- Joe Provo Voice 508.486.7471 Director, Internet Planning & Design Fax 508.229.2375 Network Deployment & Management, RCN <joe.provo () rcn com>
Current thread:
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 bmanning (Oct 31)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Nigel Titley (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Joe Abley (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Christopher A. Woodfield (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 John Kristoff (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Eliot Lear (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Simon Lyall (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 bmanning (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Joe Abley (Nov 01)
- RE: 214/8 and 215/8 Daniel Golding (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Nigel Titley (Nov 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Joe Provo (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Sean M. Doran (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Sean M. Doran (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 bmanning (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Philip Smith (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 01)
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8 bmanning (Nov 01)