Re: Address space for individuals
- Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 11:27:51 +0200 (MET DST)
>
> 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
