nanog mailing list archives
Re: Internic address allocation policy
From: Phil Dykstra <phil () ARL MIL>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 95 13:30:30 EST
Speaking as a national network with millions of dollars invested (AAI), I tried for three months to get a Class B assigned. The total number of hosts didn't justify it, even though it was nationwide with many geographic sites that we wanted to subnet, and even though we are doing research in ATM SVC signalling, ATM multicast, NHRP, etc. So we got a CIDR block of Class C's, and as expected, many of our systems are turning out not to handle the required subnet masks without hacks. While this has all been a pain I wished to avoid, we do really need to get this CIDR stuff to work everywhere, and we really are running out of address space. So while I agree that address space struggles with the InterNIC aren't pleasant (or quick), I think they are doing what needs to be done to conserve a scarce, dwindling resource. - Phil
Current thread:
- Re: Internic address allocation policy, (continued)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Karl Denninger (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Doug Humphrey (Mar 23)
- Efficient (Dense) Use of Address Blocks Sean Shapira (Mar 20)
- Re: Efficient (Dense) Use of Address Blocks Bill Manning (Mar 20)
- Re: Efficient (Dense) Use of Address Blocks Karl Denninger (Mar 20)
- Re: Efficient (Dense) Use of Address Blocks Mike Nittmann (Mar 27)
- Re: Efficient (Dense) Use of Address Blocks Paul Traina (Mar 27)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Bill Manning (Mar 18)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Jeremy Porter (Mar 18)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy ATM_Feel_the_Power (Mar 18)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy George Herbert (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Karl Denninger (Mar 20)