Re: Internic address allocation policy

[George Herbert <gherbert () crl com>]

> > Yes and no.  Technical limitations in things like in-addr name service make
> > moving things with any boundary in the last byte very difficult, but things
> > with any boundary before it possible (and a boundary on a byte much easier).

> But there are ways to do this -now-. Folks are just not willing to do it.
> (Ever look at how TPC.INT works?  How about NSAP in-addrs?)
> Look, the in-addr argument is just that.

I'm not familiar with NSAP's setup.  I have looked at tpc.int,
and it looks to me like they could have done it with just a
largeish standard named configuration.  Nothing fancy, no new
technology, just a little thinking about the configuration.

You'd either have to have a lot of huge manually maintained files,
a hacked named, or some sort of build script and intermediate db
format to do the in-addr maps for sub-C nets.  Ok, I can see how
you can do it (a few days work at most), but it's still a hack.
Wasn't that your criticism of the buy-and-sell-blocks-of-C's
fix? 8-)

Has anyone tested to see if all the BGP-using hardware out there
will actually deal with advertising nybbles as opposed to Cs?

-george