too many routes

Michael Shields shields at crosslink.net
Tue Sep 9 22:34:13 UTC 1997


In article <199709092102.RAA18271 at Iodine.Mlink.NET>,
Phillip Vandry <vandry at Mlink.NET> wrote:
> Maybe that should be even more the standard practice. There is nothing to
> lose in allocating in the order .0, .128, .64, .192, .32, .96, .160,
> .224 instead of .0, .32, .64, .96, .128, .160, .192, .224.

Sounds similar to what was suggested in RFC 1219 over six years ago.
-- 
Shields, CrossLink.



More information about the NANOG mailing list