|
|
| Applications |
| Mailing Lists |
| Miscellaneous |
| Operating Systems |
| Programming |
Re: An informal survey... round II
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja(at)bogus.com>
Date: Thu Aug 30 2007 - 12:16:24 EDT
>
> John,
>
> Why should we announce tiny recycled blocks? If there is a /16 in the
> swamp in which half the space is free but its all /24's, why wouldn't
> wouldn't we allocate all the free /24's to a single entity and
> instruct the entity to announce it as a "holey" /16? The existing /24
> holders will override (punch holes in) the /16 for their /24's.
Date: Thu Aug 30 2007 - 12:16:24 EDT
William Herrin wrote:
> On 8/30/07, John Curran <jcurran@mail.com> wrote:
>> I.E. If at some time unknown around 2010, ISP's stop receiving >> new allocations from their RIR, and instead use of many smaller >> "recycled" IPv4 address blocks, we could be looking at a 10x to >> 20x increase in routes per month for the same customer growth.
>
> John,
>
> Why should we announce tiny recycled blocks? If there is a /16 in the
> swamp in which half the space is free but its all /24's, why wouldn't
> wouldn't we allocate all the free /24's to a single entity and
> instruct the entity to announce it as a "holey" /16? The existing /24
> holders will override (punch holes in) the /16 for their /24's.
And when they withdraw the more specific or you glop them together in your fib in the name of agregation a 3rd party gets all their traffic? I'm sure that will work really well.
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
Received on Thu Aug 30 12:34:56 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 29 2007 - 14:04:57 EDT
|
Contact Us Legal Notices Order Services Online Pantek Home Privacy Policy IT news Site Map Pantek Library |