|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy )
Paul writes: >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!): That was me, actually. >> 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). I slipped. It's 64k class C networks. I know better, but yesterday was a long day. If all the router vendors supported nybble-sized routing, things would be a lot easier for providers. If there was an easy named db syntax to fix in-addr mapping syntax for nybble-sized routing, things would be a lot easier for providers. Paul can perhaps fix one of these issues (in his copious spare time? 8-), the other one is a more general problem. -george william herbert [email protected]
|