Address block problem
Andy Dills
andy at XECU.NET
Mon Jul 31 17:21:21 EDT 2000
- Previous message: FYI: 31-bits draft
- Next message: Address block problem
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Bruce Robertson wrote: > It was my understanding that 216.82.160.0/19 was reserved for our future > expansion past the end of 216.82.128.0/19. I find that this block has > been assigned to someone else. Why was this allowed to happen without > any notification? > > Once again I find that I am penalized for being frugal with IP addresses. All > of the ARIN policies are such that people who waste IP addresses are > rewarded for that behavior, and people who manage to slow their address > consumption to almost zero are penalized. On top of that, this action just > added to fragmentation, since when I need another /19, it will now no longer > be contiguous with an existing block. While I'm happy to note that my contiguous /19 is still available for me to grab (which will be happening pretty soon), I fail to see what the big deal is. What does having the contiguous /19 really get you? I mean, 7 times out of 10 there will be two routes for the given CIDR block...different prefix lengths for managing inbound traffic, multi-homed customers, etc. So number of routes isn't a large consideration, at least to me. Is it just an annoyance thing? Andy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
- Previous message: FYI: 31-bits draft
- Next message: Address block problem
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the ARIN-discuss mailing list