[505] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@ISI.EDU)
Sun Sep 24 18:28:37 1995
From: bmanning@ISI.EDU
To: smd@cesium.clock.org (Sean Doran)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 15:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: gherbert@crl.com, tli@cisco.com, asp@uunet.uu.net, cidrd@iepg.org,
nanog@MERIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <95Sep24.133051pdt.6554@cesium.clock.org> from "Sean Doran" at Sep 24, 95 01:30:43 pm
Resent-From: nanog@MERIT.EDU
>
> | Right now, larger ISPs aren't getting large
> | blocks, and they are allocating things in non-contiguous non-growable
> | blocks, neither of which is good. Nothing is being done to organize
> | topological assignments at all, which is seriously not good.
>
> If some registry were to give me a /8, I would carve that up
> right now into ten chunks (one per SprintLink POP as of a
> couple weeks from now) and subdivide those to take into
> account possible growth into new cities before the current
> allocations to end users were exhausted, and allow for
> unexpectedly heavy or unexpectedly light allocations to
> customers from those prefixes.
>
> However, those ten chunks would be the only individual
> prefixes announced out of AS1239 to the rest of the world,
> in the entire /8.
>
> Some parts of the world would even see the /8 and not the
> ten individual per-POP prefixes.
>
> This is what is done now with smaller chunks of address
> space:
....
> Sean.
>
I expect that if Sprintlink were to propose a rational plan to
renumber and -return- the older delegations that they would be
provided with a large, single block that Sean could pursuade
Sprintlink to carve up in the fashion that he indicated.
It would go a long way in reducing the size of the global routing
system.
--bill
