|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.
> > | 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
|