[960] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Address clustering intuition
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Craig A. Huegen)
Thu Nov 9 14:51:03 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 11:22:50 -0800 (PST)
From: "Craig A. Huegen" <c-huegen@quad.quadrunner.com>
To: "Walter O. Haas" <haas@xmission.com>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199511091716.KAA03134@xmission.xmission.com>
On Thu, 9 Nov 1995, Walter O. Haas wrote:
> Note that this results from the address being, not the property of the
> ISP or the end user, but rather of a geographic location. In other words
> under my scheme if I picked up and moved a hundred miles I'd have to
> renumber, but if I just switched ISPs I wouldn't.
The problem is that once you assign a group of IP numbers to a geographic
region, and they're being used, then what happens with population shifts?
For instance, let's say one county in South Dakota gets maybe a /22
block, and Silicon Valley gets a /6 block. What happens (hypothetically,
of course) if all of South Dakota all of the sudden begins growing as a
techology center? After you're out of address space, you're out... =)
With IPng, assignment would be better possible, but right now, anything
close is just improbable.
/cah
