nanog mailing list archives
Re: IAB and "private" numbering
From: Geoff Huston <gih () apnic net>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:18:55 +1100
I think I can state authoritatively (:-)) that the IANA is aware of (at least some of) the discrepancies and has address registry data synchronization on its priority list.
Thank you - as you are aware I've documented what I have seen in terms of discrepencies at
http://draft-huston-ipv4-iana-registry.potaroo.netThe /8s that merit some further consideration in terms of resolving potentially inconsistent views of the IPv4 address world include 7.0.0.0/8, 46.0.0.09/8, and 191.0.0.0/8, as well as a wealth of other smaller details.
regards, Geoff
Current thread:
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering, (continued)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering bmanning (Nov 12)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Mark Smith (Nov 12)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 12)
- Message not available
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 12)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Geoff Huston (Nov 13)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Peter Dambier (Nov 13)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Steven M. Bellovin (Nov 13)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Peter Dambier (Nov 14)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering David Conrad (Nov 15)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Geoff Huston (Nov 15)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Tony Tauber (Nov 14)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Mark Smith (Nov 14)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Daniel Karrenberg (Nov 17)
- Re: IAB and "private" numbering Mark Smith (Nov 17)