Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.

[bmanning]

> 
> | Right now, larger ISPs aren't getting large
> | blocks, and they are allocating things in non-contiguous non-growable
> | blocks, neither of which is good.  Nothing is being done to organize
> | topological assignments at all, which is seriously not good.
> 
> If some registry were to give me a /8, I would carve that up
> right now into ten chunks (one per SprintLink POP as of a
> couple weeks from now) and subdivide those to take into
> account possible growth into new cities before the current
> allocations to end users were exhausted, and allow for
> unexpectedly heavy or unexpectedly light allocations to
> customers from those prefixes.
> 
> However, those ten chunks would be the only individual
> prefixes announced out of AS1239 to the rest of the world,
> in the entire /8.
> 
> Some parts of the world would even see the /8 and not the
> ten individual per-POP prefixes.
> 
> This is what is done now with smaller chunks of address
> space:
.... 
> 	Sean.
> 

I expect that if Sprintlink were to propose a rational plan to 
renumber and -return- the older delegations that they would be
provided with a large, single block that Sean could pursuade
Sprintlink to carve up in the fashion that he indicated.

It would go a long way in reducing the size of the global routing
system.

--bill