[509] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Li)
Sun Sep 24 20:14:25 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 17:13:39 -0700
From: Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>
To: bmanning@ISI.EDU
Cc: smd@cesium.clock.org, gherbert@crl.com, tli@cisco.com, asp@uunet.uu.net,
cidrd@iepg.org, nanog@MERIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <199509242225.AA06899@zed.isi.edu> (bmanning@ISI.EDU)
Resent-From: nanog@MERIT.EDU
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.
Methinks that this is backwards. Sprintlink clearly has a rational
plan. Obviously they cannot possibly return an older delegation until
they can get more address space.
It would go a long way in reducing the size of the global routing
I count 45 prefixes.
IMHO, someone needs to be following RIPE's guidelines and should be
assigning shorter prefixes to Sprint on a per-block basis.
Tony
