Re: APNIC returning 223/8 to IANA

[bmanning () karoshi com]

> On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> > Just like the people who get 69/8 blocks should expect them to be
> > fully usable as well, right? 
>
> I think all that really needs to happen here is an RFC update that 
> unreserves 223.255.255.0/24.  RFC3330 already mentioned that the basis for 
> this reservation was no longer applicable.  Someone at IANA just screwed 
> up the order of events, as the block should have been explicitly 
> unreserved before it was assigned.
...

        Its not quite that simple folks.  The reason this particular
        block is reserved has some real technical merit, while the 69/8
        muddle is strictly due to ISP negligence.

        RFC 3330 got it wrong.  Anyone remember the "Martian List"
        from the 1970-1990's?  Trying to use the all-ones or all-zeros
        network for real traffic is not possible.  Pre CIDR it was
        not possible to use 192.0.0.0/24 or 192.0.255.0/24. (the same was
        true on -every- network boundary) With CIDR,
        those boundaries moved to 1.0.0.0/24 and 223.255.255.0/24
        e.g. only two reservered blocks instead of hundreds.  

        Simply having someonechange a DB entry or create an RFC will 
        not affect the installed silicon base.  Won't work.   
        APNIC is on the moral highground here.  They received damaged 
        goods without notification. IANA needs better technical clue.

--bill