> On May 22, 2015, at 20:42 , Michel Py <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> David Conrad wrote : >> In my (early) experience at APNIC, there was significant interest in >> "vanity" IP addresses, >> to the point where folks created multiple companies in order to get >> particular addresses >> when APNIC was allocating address blocks in a predictable sequential fashion. > > +1 > > It has not changed much either : FACE:B00C ???? :P > Come on guys, back in the Novell days we were already in that game claiming > FEED BABE BEEF and F00D and CAFE on IPX networks. > > Michel. > >
I’ll point out that face:b00c is _NOT_ a vanity address. The full address in question is: 2a03:2880:2130:cf05:face:b00c::1 which is a perfectly normal prefix assignment from RIPE-NCC regisetered as 2a03:2880::/32 to Facebook Irleand. Facebook could have created that same /64 within any /32 they were issued anywhere, so it’s not a great example. As to David’s argument… It doesn’t counter mine. I said I can only think of a few reasons. David brought up one of the few I could think of. I don’t doubt that there are several companies that might have those same reasons for wanting to do so, but there are a pretty limited number of reasons. I don’t know whether or not Google payed anything extra to Level 3 to get that particular /24 (8.8.8.0/24) or it’s companion 8.8.4.0/24 or not. If they did, I’m betting it wasn’t a whole lot. Do you have any examples of a beneficial purpose for which a company would be likely to outbid the nefarious purposes for such an address in an open auction? I’m betting running a free public nameserver isn’t going to cut it. Owen * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
