On Wed, 16 Aug 95 13:09:52 PDT you said:
Paul,
New allocations are (as of 1466bis) being done through providers, on CIDRized lines. Whether IPv4 or IPv6, new allocations are not going to badly impact the core routing table size.
Does that mean that all the internet registries no longer allocate /24 (or longer) prefixes that have nothing to do with the actual Internet topology (these prefixes aka "portable addresses") ? Perhaps folks from various Internet registries would be able to answer this question.
I assign /22s to ISPs. When they use them up I give them another /22. Private companies that show a need for a /24 are assigned a /24.
Yakov.
Hank
Does that mean that all the internet registries no longer allocate /24 (or longer) prefixes that have nothing to do with the actual Internet topology (these prefixes aka "portable addresses") ? Perhaps folks from various Internet registries would be able to answer this question.
I assign /22s to ISPs. When they use them up I give them another /22. Private companies that show a need for a /24 are assigned a /24.
Ah. here is the rub. When you ISP buddies come back, you should ask them to return the origianal /22 for a /20. That way, the total size of the routing system stays the same! -- --bill
Does that mean that all the internet registries no longer allocate /24 (or longer) prefixes that have nothing to do with the actual Internet topology (these prefixes aka "portable addresses") ? Perhaps folks from various Internet registries would be able to answer this question.
I assign /22s to ISPs. When they use them up I give them another /22. Private companies that show a need for a /24 are assigned a /24.
Ah. here is the rub. When you ISP buddies come back, you should ask them to return the origianal /22 for a /20. That way, the total size of the routing system stays the same!
And every time they need to expand, even using the same provider, they have to renumber their whole network? I sincerely hope that was sarcasm I detected in your post... Dave -- Dave Siegel Director of Engineering, Net99 http://www.webcity.com/ (602)249-1083 24x7 NOC line http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/ (520)318-0696 My Tucson Office
Dave Siegel writes:
Ah. here is the rub. When you ISP buddies come back, you should ask them to return the origianal /22 for a /20. That way, the total size of the routing system stays the same!
And every time they need to expand, even using the same provider, they have to renumber their whole network?
I sincerely hope that was sarcasm I detected in your post...
Renumbering isn't necessarily required if the blocks are given out such that there is room for growth should the smaller IP come back for more addresses. For example when I allocate individual class C addresses, I don't give them out consecutively. Initially I leave at least three unused addresses after the one I allocate. If someone comes back and needs more, their allocation grows to fill up the holes. I try to judge who will grow (e.g., a town network) and who won't (a BBS) and leave my options open as long as possible.
participants (4)
-
bmanning＠ISI.EDU -
Dave Siegel -
Gary Wright -
Hank Nussbacher