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

["Makc The Great" <makc.the.great@localhost]

On 12/4/06, Amar amar@localhost wrote:
> 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
Hey Amar, I thought you have just forgot to include cc to this list, I
am sorry, and I took only a part of your e-mail because I thought it
sums up everything people wrote in reply to my original message.
Perhaps I simply shouldn't put your name on it.

Then yes I did believed "that all assigned addresses had to be on the
same physical network". And that's why I am asking about
"Sub-allocations are intended to aid the goal of routing aggregation"
part, and "you" in my "could you please explain" refers to all people
on the list.

I am sorry for causing this confusion.