I think its a typo in the proposal The proposal text reads:
it was recommended that the covering /24 prefix, and also 1.1.1.0/24 be withheld from allocation pending a decision as to the longer term disposition of these address prefixes. I believe it was meant to read: it was recommended that the covering /24 prefix, and also 1.0.0.0/24, be withheld from allocation pending a decision as to the longer term disposition of these address prefixes. thanks, Geoff On 29 Jan 2014, at 2:55 am, Sanjeev Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: >>> addresses 1.1.1.1 as the single address with the highest level of >>> unsolicited traffic, and it was recommended that the covering /24 >>> prefix, and also 1.1.1.0/24 >> Sorry, I am unclear, isn't the "covering /24" the same as "1.1.1.0/24"? > > 1.1.1.0/24 covers 1.1.1.1/32 > > Randy, my point was that the text seems repetitive, reserving both 1.1.1.0/24 > _and_ "the /24 covering 1.1.1.1" > > -- > Sanjeev Gupta > +65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
