[38826] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: standards for giving out blocks of IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Charles Scott)
Sat Jun 16 15:46:41 2001
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:45:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Scott <cscott@gaslightmedia.com>
To: David R Huberman <huberman@gblx.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0106161200120.20746-100000@shell1.phx.gblx.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0106161539470.4517-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, David R Huberman wrote:
> You are not really justified to assign more address space to them until
> they have assigned 80% of their /20. (There are real-world examples where
> orgs need to request additional address space at the same time as
> achieving 80%, but let's not let reality get in the way of textbook
> examples!)
>
> The size of the additional block you assign them should closely fit the
> 25%-50% requirement. (Again, real world examples tend to trend to fitting
> the 50% requirement more than the 25% requirement, but so be it.)
David:
I think my prior response answers most of this, but it should be clear
that the 25%-50% "suggestion" can't be compatible with the 80%
requirement. These must be refering to two totally different things,
particlulary because the 50% referes to a year, and RFC2050 suggests 3
month worth of IP address for subsequent allocations.
Chuck
