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 )

  • From: George Herbert
  • Date: Mon Mar 20 14:53:27 1995

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]