On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Andy Linton wrote:
Chris Wedgwood wrote:
follow; surely we have a situation where providers in the
past have carved up a say /20 for clients -- and when a client moves
this /20 might then need to become sixeteen /24 routes (or a /21, a
/22, a /23 and two /24 or whatever).
No. It's still a /20 with a single /24 hole punched in it. If the net
ends up with a policy that only allows prefixes up to /20 on the
backbone then the bozo who moves and won't renumber looses. He may 'own'
the address space but it's no damn use to him.
I may be missing the point here, but in a situation where the net won't
route longer prefixes than /20, doesn't punching a /24 hole in a /20
render the entire /20 unusable, not just the /24 - because the carrier who
formally advertised the /20 now has to advertise a bunch of /21,/22,/23
and /24 prefixes to cover the remainder?
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads: