Internic address allocation policy

Bill Manning bmanning at ISI.EDU
Mon Mar 20 23:00:11 UTC 1995

> >Looks like a double standard to me...  The same argument could be placed
> >for any subnet not on an 8,16, or 24 bit bound.
> Yes and no.  Technical limitations in things like in-addr name service make
> moving things with any boundary in the last byte very difficult, but things
> with any boundary before it possible (and a boundary on a byte much easier).

But there are ways to do this -now-. Folks are just not willing to do it.
(Ever look at how TPC.INT works?  How about NSAP in-addrs?)
Look, the in-addr argument is just that.


More information about the NANOG mailing list