Re: [address-policy-wg] Allocation vs assignment question

[Amar amar@localhost]

Two things first:

1) If I send You a mail off list I see this as a private
   conversation between two parties. If I would like to
   make a public statement I would have sent a CC or
   replied to the list

2) I You decide to continiue the intended private conversation
   by sending my comments to the list without my consent then
   do not cut out pieces of the full text I wrote.

But because You have already done it:

Makc The Great wrote:

> So, overall consensus here is like this:
I wrote (un-cut by You):

  Let's say that You have 192.168.0.0/16 allocated
  to You. You have a global backbone with services
  all around the world.

  From that You assign Acme a /24 (eg 192.168.0.0/24)
  and route that thru Acmes connection in London.

  One month later Acme comes back an requests for
  another /24 but this time in New York.

  You assign Acme 192.168.1.0/24 and route that
  thru their connection in New York.

  Now Acme has two network with a /24 on each. They
  are not on the same subnet but the addresses are
  assigned to the same organisation.

  Ergo: There has not to be any connection between
        subnets for each assignment. It is done
        based on the proven need and not on a
        physical connection between the requesters
        networks.

> Could you please explain then what does "Sub-allocations are intended
> to aid the goal of routing aggregation" phrase means in english?
Your question was made in such way that I belived that
You thougt that all assigned addresses had to be on the
same physical network. That was what my answer was
about.

-- amar