%
% At 8:48 AM -0700 4/25/00, Bill Manning wrote:
% >and this is different from only carrying the 253 usable /8 prefixes in
% >IPv4 how?
%
% The set of customers who have addresses under a given IPv4 /8 prefix greater
% than 127 do not all aggregate into a single topological subregion (e.g., a
% single ISP), and therefore more granular routes must be widely disseminated
% to make those customers reachable. That's the difference.
%
% Steve
Given the nature of trans-oceanic b/w vs. local b/w arguments I've heard
over the years, I'd say that these delegations are esentially constrained
to topological subregions and that for the most part, having the largest
incumbent ISPs in each region announce the respective /8 would roughly
meet the IPv6, heirarchical aggregation argument.
133.0.0.0/8 - Japan
193/8 RIPE NCC - Europe May 93
194/8 RIPE NCC - Europe May 93
195/8 RIPE NCC - Europe May 93
199/8 ARIN - North America May 93
200/8 ARIN - Central and South America May 93
201/8 Reserved - Central and South America May 93
202/8 APNIC - Pacific Rim May 93
203/8 APNIC - Pacific Rim May 93
204/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94
205/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94
206/8 ARIN - North America Apr 95
207/8 ARIN - North America Nov 95
208/8 ARIN - North America Apr 96
209/8 ARIN - North America Jun 96
210/8 APNIC - Pacific Rim Jun 96
211/8 APNIC - Pacific Rim Jun 96
212/8 RIPE NCC - Europe Oct 97
213/8 RIPE NCC - Europe Mar 99
214/8 US-DOD Mar 98
215/8 US-DOD Mar 98
216/8 ARIN - North America Apr 98
--
--bill