Comments on " Guidance in the Assignment of Internet Numbers"

  > Christian Huitema <Christian.Huitema at sophia.inria.fr> writes:
  > 
  > There is one phrase in the example you give which rings a lot of alarm
  > bells.  "For technical reasons we cannot use VLSMs or subnetting." This
  > is just unacceptable; the goal of connectedness cannot be achieved
  > without supporting CIDR, i.e.  both subnetting and supernetting.  The
  > reference to RFC 1466 in the draft already imply this technical
  > requirement; it may be a good idea to explicitly restate it. 

1) If you read RFC1466 section 4.3 it can be (and freuqntly is) read 
to say the opposite.  The draft can be read to say that just sending 
any odd engineering plan is sufficient.

2) To me it is more alarming that obviously in this case someone has
made a nice, administratively convenient (note the powers of 10)
addressing plan with a lot of room for growth. It is probably also
more the product of planning (imagination) than reality. We receive a 
lot of those. While we do not have an executive arm to go investigate
whether the plans are real, we can at least ask them for a deployment
plan and then give them the address space they really need for two
years realistically expected growth.

Do you want us to continue doing that?

If yes, give us the policy to be able to do it.

If no, our assignment rate will increase by at least an order of
magnitude.

Ceterum censeo: RFC1466 esse rescribendam!

Daniel