Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.
From: bmanning () ISI EDU
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 15:25:24 -0700 (PDT)


| Right now, larger ISPs aren't getting large
| blocks, and they are allocating things in non-contiguous non-growable
| blocks, neither of which is good.  Nothing is being done to organize
| topological assignments at all, which is seriously not good.

If some registry were to give me a /8, I would carve that up
right now into ten chunks (one per SprintLink POP as of a
couple weeks from now) and subdivide those to take into
account possible growth into new cities before the current
allocations to end users were exhausted, and allow for
unexpectedly heavy or unexpectedly light allocations to
customers from those prefixes.

However, those ten chunks would be the only individual
prefixes announced out of AS1239 to the rest of the world,
in the entire /8.

Some parts of the world would even see the /8 and not the
ten individual per-POP prefixes.

This is what is done now with smaller chunks of address
space:
.... 
      Sean.


I expect that if Sprintlink were to propose a rational plan to 
renumber and -return- the older delegations that they would be
provided with a large, single block that Sean could pursuade
Sprintlink to carve up in the fashion that he indicated.

It would go a long way in reducing the size of the global routing
system.

--bill



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]