2 May
2013
2 May
'13
1:21 a.m.
I completely agree.
Even if we did want to reserve 44.128/16 for testing, we shouldn't need to
add it to an RFC. All we would need to do is write a match rule to drop it
from the BGP advertisements to the Internet and just know internally that
it's test. But still there is plenty of address space to experiment without
needing to do this in my opinion.
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Geoff Joy <geoff(a)windowmeister.com> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I have to agree with Marc on this. There are plenty of test and
RFC1918 addresses for private nets or nets behind NAT where it makes
no sense to use 44.128/16 as a test or private space. Where normal
firewall rules might catch a leak of an RFC1918 address, they wouldn't
catch a leak of a 44.128/16 address.
If you need a 44-net block, just coordinate a subnet for it. Net 44 is
sparsely populated and it probably always will be and while there
might not be a pressing need to allocate 44.128/16 to "real" addresses
I see no reason to reserve it for all time. Deprecate it now with the
advisory to contact your coordinator for an assigned address space.
The entire 44/8 space is "experimental" by definition.
--
Geoff Joy - ke6qh -
AmprNet IP Address Coordinator for San Bernardino & Riverside Counties.
geoff(a)windomeister.com
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html