[1544] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Forrest W. Christian)
Fri Jan 26 03:33:08 1996
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 01:21:16 -0700 (MST)
From: "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc@imach.com>
To: "Robert A. Rosenberg" <hal9001@panix.com>
cc: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net>, Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>,
postel@isi.edu, nanog@merit.edu, cidrd@iepg.org, iepg@iepg.org,
iab@isi.edu, iesg@isi.edu, iana@isi.edu,
Local Internet Registries in Europe <local-ir@ripe.net>
In-Reply-To: <v02140a06ad2e0365f61d@[165.254.158.237]>
Here's an interesting thought on the whole thing...
I've sort of noticed that the opinion of several people is that the way
that the internic allocates IP numbers is "space efficient".
CIDR routing on the other hand is considered "routing table efficient".
I felt like digging through 205.* and 206.*, at least at the start.
I did a whois on 205.0.0.0 and then looked at the last used # in the
allocated block, and then did a whois on that #. For CIDR blocks, I was
jumping over the entire block, as listed in the whois.
From this it looks like the internic is allocating a large number of
prefixes longer than /18. Am I wrong in stating that (assuming that
Sprint's policy is unchangable) any IP numbers allocated with a prefix
longer than /19 in 205 and /18 in 206 is essentially wasted space, which
is unusable, at least if you want connectivity with sprint?
If this is the case, then I'd imagine that the allocation policies of
certain registries (most notably the internic) of netblocks smaller than
/18 is very address space inefficient.
-forrestc@imach.com
