nanog mailing list archives
Re: 214/8 and 215/8
From: smd () clock org (Sean M. Doran)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 07:42:01 -0800 (PST)
| The full RFC2050 justification for a /7's worth of space would | be a mighty and wondrous thing to behold. Indeed, and since 2050 predates the allocation date listed at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space by a year and a half, I hope such a full justification exists for what otherwise would be a rather creepy land-grab. Maybe someone who does FOIAs regularly could start on one, since nobody seems to have jumped up to justify the two /8s? Sean. (studiously avoiding the issue of the IANA institutionalization process underway now, which presumably will have a practical bearing on such matters...)
Current thread:
- Re: 214/8 and 215/8, (continued)
- 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)
- 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)