IANA ipv6-unicast-address-assignments 2006-10-03 update b0rked

[Bjoern A. Zeeb]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:

Hi,

> I have a bad evening but I was re-doing some of my ipv6 filters and
> wondered why some prefixes got dropped... I wondered why (for example)
> 2610:88::/32
> 2610:78::/32
> 2610:90::/32
> 2610:b8::/32
> 2610:40::/32
> 2610:38::/32
> 2610:8::/32
> 2610:a0::/32
> where not catched by 2600::/12 ge 29 le 32 - the new allocation
> incorporating the previous ones...
>
> Well as said I have a bad evening and someone on IRC helped me with
> the math.... ;)
>
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments
> was last updated 2006-10-03 and here is part of the diff:
>

(looks like I had some whitespace at the end of the line so here's the
diff again [hopefully more readable])

-2600:0000::/22        ARIN           19 Apr 05
-2604:0000::/22        ARIN           19 Apr 05
-2608:0000::/22        ARIN           19 Apr 05
-260C:0000::/22        ARIN           19 Apr 05
-2610:0000::/23        ARIN           17 Nov 05
-2620:0000::/23        ARIN           12 Sep 06
+2600:0000::/12        ARIN           03 Oct 06   [9]

+[9]  2600:0000::/22, 2604:0000::/22, 2608:0000::/22 and 260C:0000::/22 were
+     allocated on 19 Apr 05.  2610:0000::/23 was allocated on 17 Nov 05.
+     2620:0000::/23 was allocated on 12 Sep 06.  The more recent allocation
+     (03 Oct 06) incorporates all these previous allocations.

>
>
> So can anyone tell me how 2600::/12 is covering 2610::/23 and 2620::/23 ?
>
> IANA could you please fix that?
>
> Why does it need 20 days, a bad evening, someone on IRC helping with
> the maths (and telling me about sipcalc;) to find this?
>
>

-- 
Bjoern A. Zeeb				bzeeb at Zabbadoz dot NeT