On 04/10/2009 4:49, "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> wrote: [...]
So, if I need to break up my /32 into 4 /34s to cover different geographical regions, I should instead renumber into a new range set aside for /34s and give back the /32? Sure seems like a lot of extra overhead. Perhaps we should give everyone an allocation out of each filter range, so that they can simply number from the appropriately-classed range; when you apply for space, you'd get a /32, a /33, a /34, a /35, a /36, etc. all from the appropriate, statically defined ranges.
I think ARIN proposal 2009-5 (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_5.html) is designed to cope with the situation you describe. I understand that it's on the agenda for the meeting in Dearborn.
I don't think so. I believe the statement is not in regard to separate, discrete networks bu to a network with a national footprint which must deaggregate to do traffic engineering by region. Item 2 clearly makes 2009-5 non-applicable to this case.
I thought that "Geographic distance and diversity between networks" covered the case above but I could well be wrong.
This issue will be discussed in a Mark Kosters moderated panel at NANOG in Dearborn. Hey, why not attend both meetings?
I won't be there in person but look forward to watching the video feed. Regards, Leo