On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Berislav Todorovic wrote:

A rather better approach is to try to plan address space assignment within the current allocation smarter. Say, if xx.foo was allocated 172.16/16 in the past and it wants to start its business in the country YY, then they may "reserve" a small /20 within that allocation (say 172.16.240/20) and start assigning addresses to YY customers from that /20, while using the rest of the /16 for XX customers.

This is rather difficult for the new registries who do not have many /16:s of free address space. This is due to the requirement of 80% fill-up of an allocation before a new allocation can be obtained. Basically, dividing a /16 into a /17 and 8 per-country /20:s would be optimal from the routing point of view: the /16 could be presented as an aggregate to transit or to non-European peers. However, if business grows at different speeds in different countries, and one is only able to allocate /21 in half of the countries, the fill-up ratio will remain at 75%, making it impossible to get a new allocation and forcing a renumbering. Thus, it seems that the current policies force one to register several LIRs, and to request distinct non-aggregatable address spaces. This leads to explosion of routing tables. Is this really what we want? (The alternative would be to change policies to allow a LIR to have several open allocations when the open allocations would be under different routing policies.) - Kai Keindnen Saunalahti Oyj -- Kai Keinanen >>>^<<< GSM: +358 456 700 100 Technology Director /$\ mail: PL 96, 33721 Tampere SAUNALAHTI OYJ, Finland | | email: Kai.Keinanen@saunalahti.fi .88.744/7.88.744/7.88.744/7.88.oOOOo.88.744/7.88.744/7.88.744/7.88.744/7.8