Subject: Re: Background regarding [Re: Reclaiming 225/8]

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:26:50 -0700

One other point to make here: These addresses are in arbitrary
  use, e.g.

	orix.maoz.com#sh ip mroute | include 225
	(*, 225.1.2.3), 23:57:19/00:02:59, RP 205.167.76.241, flags: SP
	(128.193.22.165, 225.1.2.3), 00:01:34/00:01:25, flags: PT
	(128.193.25.37, 225.1.2.3), 00:02:34/00:00:25, flags: PT
	(128.193.190.19, 225.1.2.3), 00:02:33/00:00:26, flags: PT
	(128.193.190.93, 225.1.2.3), 00:02:34/00:00:25, flags: PT
	(128.193.191.234, 225.1.2.3), 00:02:33/00:00:26, flags: PT

 Dave

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:24:29 -0700

Please see draft-ietf-mboned-iana-ipv4-mcast-guidelines-03.txt

  Thanks,

  Dave

On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 11:14:42AM -0700, David Meyer wrote:
>> 
>>   225/8 was allocated for experimentation with the MASC protocol.
>>   In particular, it was to be used to statically assign the top
>>   level of the MASC infrastructure (statically) so we didn't have
>>   to deploy a BRIB capable routing system before experimenting
>>   with the MALLOC architecture. The assignment is (from 
>>   http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses):
>> 
>>   225.0.0.0-225.255.255.255  MALLOC (temp - renew 1/01) [Handley]
>> 
>>   Since we are not using 225/8 for this purpose (or at all, for
>>   that matter), I want to reclaim it. Mark Handley suggested that
>>   I mention this to the list. If you have comments, please
>>   respond directly to me (copying the list). 
>> 
>>   Thanks,
>> 
>>   Dave

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:25:40 -0700 (PDT)

Good idea Dave. Yes, I'm in favor of reclaiming it.

Thanks,
Greg