Address space for individuals
poole at eunet.ch poole at eunet.ch
Sat May 21 11:27:51 CEST 1994
> > Sounds fair to me. Although I foresee internal routing problems here. > I suspect they can be solved with routing entries for each individual > host (?). > The local routing table would become quite big, but that is not so > much of concern (yet? :-)) With time CIDR-aware software will be > available. > Assuming we have CIDR-aware software, why should we use the class C address space for these small allocations? Wouldn't it be better to split up one class A (this would allow 4 million allocations of a 3 bit net)? My main problem with supporting "sub-class C" allocations is that the local-IR's don't operate in a vaccum. There's a whole system of: - computer manufactureres - networking equipment companies - consultants - literature that can't be ignored. My experience shows that address allocation works best when the applicant already knows what to expect. Since the above "information system" has barely caught up with subnetting and maybe a bit of CIDR, it's suicidal to change yet another aspect of allocation policy essentially in secret. If we go for some kind of CIDR'zed allocation of small nets, the policy should: - use a clearly identifiable address range (not the current class C's). - be widely published (make it a big event). Simon
[ lir-wg Archives ]