nanog mailing list archives
Re: too many routes
From: shields () crosslink net (Michael Shields)
Date: 09 Sep 1997 22:34:13 +0000
In article <199709092102.RAA18271 () Iodine Mlink NET>, Phillip Vandry <vandry () Mlink NET> wrote:
Maybe that should be even more the standard practice. There is nothing to lose in allocating in the order .0, .128, .64, .192, .32, .96, .160, .224 instead of .0, .32, .64, .96, .128, .160, .192, .224.
Sounds similar to what was suggested in RFC 1219 over six years ago. -- Shields, CrossLink.
Current thread:
- too many routes Phil Howard (Sep 09)
- Re: too many routes Michael Dillon (Sep 09)
- Re: too many routes Phil Howard (Sep 09)
- Re: too many routes Michael Dillon (Sep 09)
- Re: too many routes Phillip Vandry (Sep 09)
- Re: too many routes Michael Shields (Sep 09)
- gated.conf Joe Shaw (Sep 09)
- Re: gated.conf Neil J. McRae (Sep 10)
- Re: gated.conf Joe Shaw (Sep 10)
- Re: gated.conf John G. Scudder (Sep 10)
- Re: gated.conf Neil J. McRae (Sep 10)
- Re: too many routes Phil Howard (Sep 09)
- Re: too many routes Michael Dillon (Sep 09)
- Re: too many routes Jeff Williams (Sep 09)
- Re: Renumbering for better aggregation (was Re: too many routes) Phil Howard (Sep 09)
- Re: Renumbering for better aggregation (was Re: too many routes) J.D. Falk (Sep 09)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: too many routes Eric Germann (Sep 09)