Fwd: [ipv6-wg] How polluted is 1/8?
-------- 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
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
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
On 4/02/2010, at 10:35 AM, Joel Wiramu Pauling 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?
delegated-apnic-latest:apnic|AP|ipv4|1.0.0.0|256|20100122|assigned delegated-apnic-latest:apnic|AU|ipv4|1.1.1.0|256|20100122|assigned delegated-apnic-latest:apnic|AU|ipv4|1.2.3.0|256|20100122|assigned delegated-apnic-latest:apnic|AP|ipv4|1.50.0.0|1024|20100122|allocated delegated-apnic-latest:apnic|AP|ipv4|1.255.0.0|65536|20100122|allocated These are all allocated or assigned for APNIC use, for example, debogon testing.
participants (4)
-
Andy Linton -
Joel Wiramu Pauling -
Nathan Ward -
Scott Howard