nanog mailing list archives
Re: too many routes
From: Phillip Vandry <vandry () Mlink NET>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 17:02:19 -0400 (EDT)
The problem is that although you know your goals and you also know that you WILL reach your goals, there are other companies out there with wildly inflated goals that will never even come close to reaching them. The registry folks have to cut through the bullshit and try to avoid delegating space to companies who don't really need the space and will never use it.
One thing the registries do to help avoid that problem is allocate half a block (say, half an /18) and reserve the rest. If the rest is not claimed later, it is reassigned. Maybe that should be even more the standard practice. There is nothing to lose in allocating in the order .0, .128, .64, .192, .32, .96, .160, .224 instead of .0, .32, .64, .96, .128, .160, .192, .224. -Phil
Current thread:
- too many routes Phil Howard (Sep 09)
- Re: too many routes Michael Dillon (Sep 09)
- Re: too many routes Phil Howard (Sep 09)
- Re: too many routes Michael Dillon (Sep 09)
- Re: too many routes Phillip Vandry (Sep 09)
- Re: too many routes Michael Shields (Sep 09)
- gated.conf Joe Shaw (Sep 09)
- Re: gated.conf Neil J. McRae (Sep 10)
- Re: gated.conf Joe Shaw (Sep 10)
- Re: gated.conf John G. Scudder (Sep 10)
- Re: gated.conf Neil J. McRae (Sep 10)
- Re: too many routes Phil Howard (Sep 09)
- Re: too many routes Michael Dillon (Sep 09)
- Re: too many routes Jeff Williams (Sep 09)
- Re: Renumbering for better aggregation (was Re: too many routes) Phil Howard (Sep 09)
- Re: Renumbering for better aggregation (was Re: too many routes) J.D. Falk (Sep 09)