[549] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vadim Antonov)
Mon Sep 25 19:27:35 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 19:18:45 -0400
From: Vadim Antonov <avg@sprint.net>
To: kimh@internic.net, smd@cesium.clock.org
Cc: asp@uunet.uu.net, cidrd@iepg.org, gherbert@crl.com, nanog@MERIT.EDU,
tli@cisco.com
Resent-From: nanog@MERIT.EDU
That is not the new question -- i was trying to obtain the block
equal to 8k class Cs a year ago -- unsuccessfully.
How about treating Sprint's allocations as allocations for 10
providers in different geographical areas?
--vadim
Sean,
Currently Sprint receives the largest sized CIDR block the InterNIC
is permitted to allocate. If you have a requirement for an even
larger block than please submit the justification and I will be glad
to pass it onto the IANA for approval.
Kim Hubbard
InterNIC Registry
> Unfortunately, the allocations we've been getting haven't
> been very big, and so we end up having to introduce things
> as long as 17 bits to the world, where we might have only
> had to announce /16s and /15s with a larger delegation
> from a registry.
>
> Block Name Total Free Used Free Blocks
> Cs Cs 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> East 2863 233 91% 1 1 1 1 1
> West 2176 51 97% 1 1 1 1
> South 2176 47 97% 1 1 1 1 1
> North 1920 218 88% 1 1 1 1 1
> NorthEast 1408 211 85% 1 1 1 1 1
> SouthWest 768 173 77% 1 1 1 1 1
> NYSERNet 512 129 74% 1 1
> ICM-Atlantic 128 122 4% 1 1 1 1 1
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> TOTAL 11951 1184 90% 6 5 2 5 4 5 4 5
>
>
> So, beacause we are clever and do a mix of provider-based
> and geography-based allocation (but it is a mix of both,
> with an emphasis on the provider part), we end up with
> blocks that are starving, but a single huge allocation that
> isn't full enough to have a new large allocation done by the
> registry.
>
> Sean.
>
>
