North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy )

  • From: Paul A Vixie
  • Date: Mon Mar 20 12:02:46 1995

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: [email protected]" 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).