Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
yakov at cisco.com
Fri Jan 26 21:38:27 UTC 1996
> This method would have (at least) the following advantages (or
> disadvantages, from your particular viewpoint):
> 1) You could reasonably assure that the number of prefixes in an
> /8 would match what was allocated.
> 2) Because of 1, if you get the registries to set their
> allocation policies such that no more than 1024 (or the target number)
> blocks are allocated per /8, you can guarantee that the number of
> routes in an /8 is not too far out of wack with the target.
> 3) You can give those people moving providers a grace period to renumber,
> say 30 days. Essentially, the time given to clean up the routing
> tables. This would be a side effect of the "you have 30 days to fix
> the routing tables or else".
> 4) You eliminate the wasted space of addresses with prefixes longer than
> /18 being allocated.
> The only problem this leaves is how to decide who gets an /18...
That is a *very good question*. Different answers to this question
have *quite different* implications on the address space utilization.
More information about the NANOG