nanog mailing list archives
Re: Question about 223/8
From: bmanning () karoshi com
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
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
Current thread:
- Question about 223/8 Jack Bates (Apr 28)
- Re: Question about 223/8 Jared Mauch (Apr 28)
- Re: Question about 223/8 Jack Bates (Apr 29)
- Re: Question about 223/8 bmanning (Apr 29)
- Re: Question about 223/8 Jack Bates (Apr 29)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Question about 223/8 Michael . Dillon (Apr 29)
- Re: Question about 223/8 jlewis (Apr 29)
- Re: Question about 223/8 Jared Mauch (Apr 28)