Address block problem

[Andy Dills]

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