North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: too many routes

  • From: Michael Shields
  • Date: Tue Sep 09 18:43:42 1997 
In article <[email protected]>,
Phillip Vandry <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

Sounds similar to what was suggested in RFC 1219 over six years ago.
-- 
Shields, CrossLink.