Talk:List of assigned /8 IPv4 address blocks

message: It 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)
replies: text: I could eleven --WayneMokane 15:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfair 

message: Should 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)
thread_title:  DEC bought out by Compaq, now HP. 

message: I'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)
thread_title:  21.0.0.0 and 22.0.0.0 is not a /7 network 

message: I 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)
thread_title:  Category for entities in this list 

message: I 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)
thread_title:  Microsoft own 47.0.0.0/8? 

message: Please 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
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review my 7/2/2015 changes 

message: Hello 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Surely 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)
thread_title:  Why are Amazon and IBM listed as Regional Internet Registries not as Commercial