[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Re : on PPML? - was Re: How to get ...

Iwu,

> Have you also come across the following address waist? I haven't seen
> you guys making any noise about them!
>
> 014/8   Jun 91   IANA - Public Data Network
> ---- (a whole /8 for an organisation of less than 20 people?)

Actually, the PDN /8 was allocated for integrating X.25 networks into  
the Internet.  Individual /32s were assigned to X.25 endpoints run by  
different companies, so representing 14/8 as "a whole /8 for an  
organization of less than 20 people" is not accurate.

And besides, Leo Vegoda has been very active in recovering the /32s  
so we can return 14/8 to the free pool.  There used to be over 200  
assignments in that /8.

There are lots of better examples in the "legacy /8" space, however  
I'm not sure "historical reasons" is a good rationale for current  
policy in an entirely different address space.

> inet6num: 2001:07F8::/29
> inet6num: 2001:07FD::/32
> netname: K-rootserver-net-20030829
> descr: This assignment given to k-root.server.net
> descr: maintained by the RIPE NCC
>
> --- (just for the Kroot server Infratsructure ????? is this an LIR)

Because root name server addresses must be encoded into  
configurations of all caching servers on the Internet, I believe that  
they are very special and should be treated specially.

Rgds,
-drc