[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Geoff Huston
gih at apnic.net
Wed Oct 31 00:04:52 CET 2007
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
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]