[ga] Re: 214/8 and 215/8

["Jim Fleming" <jfleming@anet.com>]

http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg09776.html
Re: 214/8 and 215/8

From: bmanning
Date: Thu Nov 01 11:25:27 2001

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> > > Hi -
> > >
> > >   214/8 and 215/8 seem to have been allocated to the U.S. DoD in ca.
1998.
> > > There does seem to be a few sizeable announcements (which overlap a
few
> > > not-so-sizable ones), but I have to wonder if anyone can explain the
> > > grounds on which they were allocated these two /8s, and which body
> > > did the allocation.   Anyone?
> > >
> > >       Sean.
> >
> > I could. Why does it matter?
>
> Oh, openness, transparency, that sort of thing. Nothing really
> important.
>
> Nigel
>

These were delegated on the return of nets 49 and 50, along w/ about a
/9 of mixed /16 and /24 space. e.g. an overall reduction in the
amount of space.  Jon Postel, as the IANA, approved the transfers.
At that time, ARIN did not have control over legacy delegations.


--bill
===============

It all boils down to fairness.

Which list do you think is more fair ?

The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
or
The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

Why would people pay for Address Space, when it is FREE ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html