[36501] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mike harrison)
Mon Apr 9 18:36:29 2001
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:18:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: mike harrison <meuon@highertech.net>
To: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: "'Aaron Dewell'" <acd@woods.net>,
"Jade E. Deane" <jade.deane@HelloNetwork.com>,
"'James Thomason'" <james@divide.org>,
"nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F092286039E27@condor.mhsc.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10104091815300.2799-100000@home.highertech.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> I looked, they had the same price-tag as a /20 or /19. The price isn't the
> issue, though ... routing *is*. Qualifying for a /20, when you only really
> need a /24, is a PITA (not to mention, leaving you feeling a bit sleazy).
I understand the issue of "it costs just as much administration overhead
as a /24 as a /20", and there is probably some more overhead for more
addresses. It also raises the bar.. do they REALLY need it?
It's #1 on tomorrows (and the next several weeks) agenda - Thanks --Mike--
