I don't see anything there that implies that 1/8 as such is any worse that any other /8 - once you take out a few specific ranges. Clearly 1.1.1/24 and 1.2.3/24 and possibly a few other specific ranges (someone mentioned 1.3.3.7) may need to be reserved, but I haven't seen anything to imply that 1.22.33/24 is any worse than 27.22.33/24. I'm hopeful that they will do more testing of these non-"special" addresses, as that's where the unknown factor still remains. Proving 1.1.1.1 is a problem is very much a "well duh!" moment... Scott. On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Joel Wiramu Pauling <aenertia(a)aenertia.net> wrote:
Whoa...
To think this is going to end up in our back yards very soon is a scary proposition.
Does anyone know if APNIC have started assigning from it yet?
On 4 February 2010 09:49, Andy Linton <asjl(a)lpnz.org> wrote:
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ipv6-wg] How polluted is 1/8? Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:41:29 +0100 From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir(a)ripe.net> To: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net, tt-wg(a)ripe.net
[Apologies for duplicates]
Dear colleagues,
After 1/8 was allocated to APNIC last week, the RIPE NCC did some measurements to find out how "polluted" this block really is.
See some surprising results on RIPE Labs: http://labs.ripe.net/content/pollution-18
Please also note the call for feedback at the bottom of the article.
Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog