North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy )
- From: Paul A Vixie
- Date: Mon Mar 20 12:02:46 1995
First, may I ask that when you reply to a message from the nanog mailing list,
you edit the headers so that they say "To: firstname.lastname@example.org" and have no CC?
Right now there is a strong penalty for anyone who adds to a thread, since we
will be on the CC list forever (getting two copies) even when it moves to a
different topic. We are all on the nanog list, no need to CC us.
Second, I've seen Karl and now Alan misuse a term. I'll pick on Alan since his
message is right in front of me, but the complaint is general (sorry Alan!):
> Taking a relatively small chunk of the remaining address space
> (say, 210.*.*.*) gives us 64k addresses to hand out in convenient
That's 16M addresses, not 64K addresses. We should not equivocate "addresses"
and "Class C networks". 210.*.*.* has 2^24 (minus subnet zero and broadcast
lossage) addresses -- 16M. 210.*.*.* has 2^16 "Class C networks" -- 64K. We
must not assume that every customer will get a Class C -- many will get just a
subnet since they will only have a handful of hosts. I know of several
providers who are chopping things up on nybble boundaries (16 hosts/net, or
actually 14 with the subnet zero and broadcast taken out).