Re: Whois 172/12

[Alex Ryu <r.hyunseog () ieee org>]

Similar to 1.0.0.0/8 case, which was allocated to APNIC last year or so...


On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:47 AM,  <bmanning () vacation karoshi com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 06:36:12AM -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> > > From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi.com () nanog org  Sun Jan 15 02:02:00 2012
> > > Subject: Re: Whois 172/12
> > > From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
> > > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 02:58:11 -0500
> > > To: NANOG list <nanog () nanog org>
> > >
> > > Read RFC1918.
> > >
> > > Likely a machine on his local network (i.e. behind the same NAT box) is hitting him.
> >
> >
> > Patrick,
> >   I'v read RFC-1918.   I cannot find *any* reference to  172.0/12, as the OP
> > was asking about.  172.16/12, yes. but not 172.0/12.  Can you please clarify
> > your advice?
> >
> > ZZ
>
>
>        so as a stylistic point,   172/12  is supposed to equal 172.0.0.0/12?
>
>        if memory serves, back in the day, there were records of allocations in this space,
>        pre-ARIN. When RFC 1918 was settled on, there were some folks blocking 172.0.0.0/8
>        so there was talk of relocating those folks into other space.
>
> /bill