[12213] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: too many routes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Shields)
Tue Sep 9 18:40:04 1997
From: shields@crosslink.net (Michael Shields)
To: Phillip Vandry <vandry@Mlink.NET>
Cc: Michael Dillon <michael@priori.net>, nanog@merit.edu
Date: 09 Sep 1997 22:34:13 +0000
In-Reply-To: Phillip Vandry's message of "Tue, 9 Sep 1997 17:02:19 -0400 (EDT)"
In article <199709092102.RAA18271@Iodine.Mlink.NET>,
Phillip Vandry <vandry@Mlink.NET> 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.
