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
Current thread:
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif., (continued)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. Tony Li (Sep 24)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. bmanning (Sep 24)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. George Herbert (Sep 24)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. bmanning (Sep 24)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. Scott Bradner (Sep 23)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. George Herbert (Sep 23)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. Sean Doran (Sep 24)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. Sean Doran (Sep 24)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. George Herbert (Sep 24)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. Sean Doran (Sep 24)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. bmanning (Sep 24)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. Kim Hubbard (Sep 25)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. Noel Chiappa (Sep 25)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. Dave Siegel (Sep 25)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. Noel Chiappa (Sep 25)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. Jeremy Porter (Sep 25)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. Noel Chiappa (Sep 25)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. Nick Williams (Sep 25)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. Dave Siegel (Sep 26)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. Nick Williams (Sep 25)
- Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif. Vadim Antonov (Sep 25)