[20186] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [YA] Fwd: Class B Purchase
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven J. Sobol)
Tue Oct 6 20:43:45 1998
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:29:16 -0400
From: "Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol@nacs.net>
To: Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.93.981006154654.24543K-100000@sidhe.memra.com>; from Michael Dillon on Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 04:00:35PM -0700
On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 04:00:35PM -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
> addresses to anyone who is legitimately multihomed? Why can't ARIN
> maintain a register of companies who are multihomed and tag their IP
> allocations, of whatever size, as "portable". I suppose we could sidestep
> Sprint and use the swamp addresses which Sprint filters on a /24 boundary.
> But why can't we just carve off a chunk of 214/8 and "register" it to
> organizations who need portable space in chunks smaller than /19?
>
> This just makes too much sense to me.
Michael, I am technically oriented, but my experience is at the local ISP
level, and I've never done any kind of infrastructure planning. So maybe I
am missing something here, but I still fail to see why on God's green earth
Progressive Networks needs a /19 besides the fact that they might not get
announced otherwise. They aren't going to *use* that many addresses. Is
Sprint the only backbone with a policy of not announcing small blocks? (I'm
not responsible for the maintenance of any BGP feeds, either. ;)
--
I'm not paranoid. Nor are any of the people who are out to get me.
