Talk:List of assigned /8 IPv4 address blocks
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Addresses being returned
editAccording to the official IANA list of /8s, most of these are due to be returned. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/
I have editing this article for the sake veracity. The U.S. contract for maintenance of IP addressing is no longer held by IANA, but by ICANN. IANA is no longer a seperate entity, but an operational division of ICANN. I also updated the link for RFC1918 to point it to the relevant Wikipedia article on Private Networks. Xerial 10:25, 30 April 2007 (PST)
Wow, I've got 256**3 IPs for life
editSay if they get to keep their vast ranges for ever or not.
Unfair
editIt does strike me as unfair that some early birds get such a vast range of addresses for which they can find no justifiable internal use.
--Len 00:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The worst one of all by far is the United States Department of Defense, they have seven /8 blocks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.3.128 (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- I could eleven --WayneMokane 15:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Correct, there are eleven numbers. You should see their electricity bill. Now look at the sixth entry. That's yours. Right there.--Rfsmit (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope the problem with whining about this is obvious now: allocation rates have been over 100 million addresses per year for the last four years, those eleven blocks might last a year, two if you're really lucky. 90.204.215.252 (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice if the article contained a short explanation as to some purposes for this list, it's like some top 10 richest persons list, and serves no other purpose than to gloat over commonfolk. I think parts from IPv4_address_exhaustion can be copied here, specifically the section on Inefficient address use.Soyasauce (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
DEC bought out by Compaq, now HP.
editShould DEC be laballed HP?
15.243.169.71 I'm editing it
DEC has done a lot of epic things and choice should be made to preserve the name if it has historic significance vs. now. It can be compared to an historic house, who built it vs., who owns it today.Soyasauce (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
21.0.0.0 and 22.0.0.0 is not a /7 network
editI've made some changes to the list, because 21.0.0.0 – 22.255.255.255 does not constitute a contiguous /7 network. For this range to be treated contiguously, the 20.0.0.0/8 and 23.0.0.0/8 ranges would also have to be included, and create a monster of a /6 network!
It is also erroneous to refer to 28-30 as if it were contiguous. In fact, 28-29 can be considered a contiguous /7 network, and it neighbors 30.0.0.0/8.
Rather than just unbold this one line and adding an explanatory footnote (like the 28-30 range), I made the following changes:
- remove reference to US DoD in the explanatory note above the table -- that fact is obvious by looking at the bold entries
- split 21-22 into two entries and remove bold styling
- split 28-30 into two entries for 28-29 and 30
- remove explanatory footnote to remove confusion with auto-reference marked "[1]"
Hope this sits nicely with the moderators. --Rfsmit (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
History?
editIs there a place to find historical /8 assignments? I vaguely recall that Gandalf Technologies had a Class A (or maybe it was a Class B) before they went out of business, and I'm curious what happened to it. ptomblin —Preceding comment was added at 21:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- @Ptomblin: Here is a many-years-late reply:
- A list from 12-Aug-2002 can be found at http://www.pc-help.org/pub/Class_A.txt (archive.org). There is no Gandalf Technologies listed. The "old" Gandalf went out of business in July 1997.
- Here is an excerpt from of that list, excluding blocks that are reserved, not allocated, or which belong to the regional NICs such as RIPE:
Extended content
|
|---|
|
- An even older list is in RFC 790 from September 1981 with assignments from 1.0.0.0 through 44.0.0.0 excluding 13.0.0.0 which was unassigned. Here is an excerpt:
Extended content
|
|---|
|
- The document goes on to list the remaining Class A networks of 44 through 126 as unassigned and 127 as reserved. It lists all Class B networks except 128.000 and 192.255 as unassigned and list those two as reserved. Similarly, it lists the Class C networks of 192.000.001 and 223.255.255 as reserved and the ones in between as unassigned. 224.0.0.0 and up are reserved.
- davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info Ptomblin (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Category for entities in this list
editI propose creating a category for the entities in this list. I knew that Apple had a large block of IPs, but that information was not on Apple Inc., so I had to come at the search from a different direction. --AdamBackstrom (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Microsoft own 47.0.0.0/8?
editI question the validity of this statement. All news items report that MS bought approximately 660,000 previous Nortel (previous BNR) IPV4 addresses. Nortel owned these AS WELL AS the /47. I can find no evidence to support the theory that MS bought 47/8
Henry Rawlinson 27th Aug 2013.
- A few whois queries indicates that:
- 47.0.0.0 - 47.15.255.255 are still registered to BNR
- 47.16.0.0 - 47.23.255.255 are used by Cablevision Systems/Optimum Online
- 47.24.0.0 - 47.52.255.255 are still registered to BNR
- 47.53.0.0 - 47.53.255.255 are used by Vodafone
- 47.54.0.0 - 47.55.255.255 are used by Bell Aliant
- 47.56.0.0 - 47.57.255.255 are still registered to BNR
- 47.58.0.0 - 47.73.255.255 are used by Vodafone
- 47.74.0.0 - 47.255.255.255 are still registered to BNR
- It appears Microsoft doesn't use any of this address space (or is not yet listed as the official registrant for that space). The news reports state that 666,624 IPv4 addresses were part of the deal, which is roughly equivalent to one 19-bit block and two 16-bit blocks, a small component of a /8. Mindmatrix 15:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Please review my 7/2/2015 changes
editPlease review the recent changes I made for content. In particular, fill in any missing info and verify or correct the info in 7.0.0.0/8.
/8 blocks that I removed as they are no longer single-owner blocks: 13, 35, 40, 47, 52, and 54
/8 blocks that I moved around or otherwise edited: 7, 16, 25, 32, 51, 53, and 57
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of assigned /8 IPv4 address blocks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110627053427/http://www.iana.org/assignments/network-24 to http://www.iana.org/assignments/network-24
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Why are Amazon and IBM listed as Regional Internet Registries not as Commercial
editSurely the 9. network and the 3. network should be in the commercial organisations section, not in the Regional Registries Section? Verm the toaster (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)