nanog mailing list archives
A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy )
From: Paul A Vixie <paul () vix com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 08:40:32 -0800
First, may I ask that when you reply to a message from the nanog mailing list, you edit the headers so that they say "To: nanog () merit edu" and have no CC? Right now there is a strong penalty for anyone who adds to a thread, since we will be on the CC list forever (getting two copies) even when it moves to a different topic. We are all on the nanog list, no need to CC us. Second, I've seen Karl and now Alan misuse a term. I'll pick on Alan since his message is right in front of me, but the complaint is general (sorry Alan!):
Taking a relatively small chunk of the remaining address space (say, 210.*.*.*) gives us 64k addresses to hand out in convenient
That's 16M addresses, not 64K addresses. We should not equivocate "addresses" and "Class C networks". 210.*.*.* has 2^24 (minus subnet zero and broadcast lossage) addresses -- 16M. 210.*.*.* has 2^16 "Class C networks" -- 64K. We must not assume that every customer will get a Class C -- many will get just a subnet since they will only have a handful of hosts. I know of several providers who are chopping things up on nybble boundaries (16 hosts/net, or actually 14 with the subnet zero and broadcast taken out).
Current thread:
- Re: Internic address allocation policy, (continued)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Paul A Vixie (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Alan Hannan (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Karl Denninger (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Ed Morin (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy George Herbert (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Alan Hannan (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy George Herbert (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Paul Traina (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Alan Hannan (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy George Herbert (Mar 19)
- A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy ) Paul A Vixie (Mar 20)
- Re: A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy ) Brett Watson (Mar 20)
- Re: A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy ) Alan Hannan (Mar 20)
- Re: A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy ) Karl Denninger (Mar 20)
- Re: A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy ) Steven J. Richardson (Mar 20)
- Re: A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy ) George Herbert (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy ATM_Feel_the_Power (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Hans-Werner Braun (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy ATM_Feel_the_Power (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Alan B. Clegg (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Karl Denninger (Mar 20)