nanog mailing list archives
Re: A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy )
From: Brett Watson <bwatson () diamond cary mci net>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 17:03:56 +0000 (GMT)
Paul A Vixie
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 convenientThat'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).
Yep, I did this when I worked for SCCSI in Houston. We also had to go through the much-argued address allocation summary, or *PLAN*, with Sesquinet. I don't see what everyone is fussing about. I made myself nuts for a while trying to guess *exactly* what my network would look like in 2 years, then 5... and then I just gave up. They said to estimate, so I estimated. And I got the address space. Granted, I never had to deal directly with the NIC but Sesquinet was pretty strict and I still got space. They also implemented the IETF recommended formula for determining usage statistics. There were a certain number of hosts on your network which had to be "pingable" and another percentage that had to be listed in DNS. Now, our problem was that we gave out class C addresses subnetted with 255.255.255.252 (yes we wasted half the address space!) for SLIP/PPP accounts. So we were under our percentage of "pingable" hosts. Once I explained why, though, we were ok'd for more addresses. It just seems to me that everyone is taking all of this way out of bounds. The internic is strict and sometimes contradicts itself, I agree. but all they ask for is a plan, or rather and *estimate*. Karl, you say you can't possibly guess those numbers? How do you do business then? You've got to be able to estimate business and market growth (not bashing you, just don't understand). -brett
Current thread:
- Re: Internic address allocation policy, (continued)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Alan Hannan (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Karl Denninger (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Ed Morin (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy George Herbert (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Alan Hannan (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy George Herbert (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Paul Traina (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Alan Hannan (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy George Herbert (Mar 19)
- A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy ) Paul A Vixie (Mar 20)
- Re: A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy ) Brett Watson (Mar 20)
- Re: A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy ) Alan Hannan (Mar 20)
- Re: A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy ) Karl Denninger (Mar 20)
- Re: A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy ) Steven J. Richardson (Mar 20)
- Re: A slight call to order (Re: Internic address allocation policy ) George Herbert (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy ATM_Feel_the_Power (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Hans-Werner Braun (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy ATM_Feel_the_Power (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Alan B. Clegg (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Karl Denninger (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Alan B. Clegg (Mar 20)