|
|
 |
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
-
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch@localhost
-
From: Geoff Huston gih@localhost
-
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:04:52 +1100
-
Cc: Nigel Titley nigel@localhost, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@localhost, Max Tulyev president@localhost, address-policy-wg@localhost
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 29 okt 2007, at 15:47, Nigel Titley wrote:
Leo has already proved that a (fairly simple) reclamation job takes a
lot of time and resource. This is for a /8 that no one much wanted and
no one much used.
Was that the 14/8 thing? Only 129 individual addresses out of 16777216
where used. Maybe just reclaiming the other 16777087 would have been
more efficient.
But I'm pretty sure it's too late anyway, just like it's too late to
make 240/4 usable.
14/8 is useable - even with an extremely small number of legacy
allocations, the address block is useable. There is no OS stack that
says "bad address" for 14/8, which is the essential difference between
14/8 and 240/4.
Geoff
|
|
|
|
