Internic address allocation policy
gherbert at crl.com
Tue Mar 21 00:23:14 UTC 1995
>> 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.
I'm not familiar with NSAP's setup. I have looked at tpc.int,
and it looks to me like they could have done it with just a
largeish standard named configuration. Nothing fancy, no new
technology, just a little thinking about the configuration.
You'd either have to have a lot of huge manually maintained files,
a hacked named, or some sort of build script and intermediate db
format to do the in-addr maps for sub-C nets. Ok, I can see how
you can do it (a few days work at most), but it's still a hack.
Wasn't that your criticism of the buy-and-sell-blocks-of-C's
Has anyone tested to see if all the BGP-using hardware out there
will actually deal with advertising nybbles as opposed to Cs?
More information about the NANOG