On 24/08/2009, at 6:38 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Aug 23, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Further discussion would be useful on one issue that was brought to
our attention.
The issue is the status of 128.66.0.0/16. This block, TEST-B, has
been used for example purposes. There is no RFC that talks about
this block, but my understanding is that IANA/ARIN have marked it
as reserved. If you search the Internet you will find at least some
number of examples and firewall rule sets that use this block, but
I have no good idea about how widespread such usage is.
What should we do about this block? Some of the potential answers
include documenting its role, marking it as reserved but
deprecating its use in examples, and returning it to the free pool
immediately (with a warning sign about possible filtering problems).
In whois, it's listed as
NetRange: 128.66.0.0 - 128.66.255.255
CIDR: 128.66.0.0/16
NetName: TEST-B
NetHandle: NET-128-66-0-0-1
Parent: NET-128-0-0-0-0
NetType: IANA Special Use
Comment:
RegDate: 1993-03-18
Updated: 2002-09-12
RFC3330 says
128.0.0.0/16 - This block, corresponding to the numerically lowest
of the former Class B addresses, was initially and is still reserved
by the IANA. Given the present classless nature of the IP address
space, the basis for the reservation no longer applies and addresses
in this block are subject to future allocation to a Regional
Internet Registry for assignment in the normal manner.
------
If there is no RFC, IANA or ARIN documentation assigning it to some
use, why not put it into the free pool ? Users have been warned for
7 years now.\
Your whois search was for 128.66.0.0/16 while RFC3330 describes
128.0.0.0/16
If one was to have interpreted RFC3330 as the authoritative list of
_all_ special use reserved blocks then at the time, September 2002,
then RFC3330 effectively reassigned 128.66.0.0/16 back into the pool
of unallocated number with no special use reserved by the IANA. Or are
you saying that the ARIN whois registry "trumps" RC3330 in this
regard? I personally don't think that this is the Right Thing, and
that RFC3330 (and its successors) should be the single authoritative
information source over these IANA special use / reserved address
blocks.
(I notice that draft-iana-rfc3330bis also drops 128.0.0.0/16 from the
list and effectively also throws this prefix back into the unallocated
pool.)
So if the IETF wants to pull 128.66.0.0/16 (and/or 128.0.0.0/16 - see
appendix A of 3330bis) back out of the unallocated pool of recyclable
addresses then someone had better pull draft-iana-rfc330bis out of the
RFC editor queue real quick and fire up a text editor, or else we'd
better start working on rfc3330bisbis any day soon!
regards,
Geoff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf