[address-policy-wg] Allocation vs assignment question
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Allocation vs assignment question
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Map of the Internet
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Makc The Great
makc.the.great at gmail.com
Mon Dec 4 18:53:50 CET 2006
On 12/4/06, Amar <amar at telia.net> 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.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Allocation vs assignment question
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Map of the Internet
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]