On 04/10/2009 4:49, "Kevin Oberman" <ober...@es.net> wrote:
[...] >>> So, if I need to break up my /32 into 4 /34s to cover different geographical >>> regions, I should instead renumber into a new range set aside for /34s >>> and give back the /32? Sure seems like a lot of extra overhead. >>> Perhaps we should give everyone an allocation out of each filter >>> range, so that they can simply number from the appropriately-classed >>> range; when you apply for space, you'd get a /32, a /33, a /34, a /35, >>> a /36, etc. all from the appropriate, statically defined ranges. >> >> I think ARIN proposal 2009-5 >> (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_5.html) is designed to cope with >> the situation you describe. I understand that it's on the agenda for the >> meeting in Dearborn. > > I don't think so. I believe the statement is not in regard to separate, > discrete networks bu to a network with a national footprint which must > deaggregate to do traffic engineering by region. Item 2 clearly makes > 2009-5 non-applicable to this case. I thought that "Geographic distance and diversity between networks" covered the case above but I could well be wrong. > This issue will be discussed in a Mark Kosters moderated panel at NANOG > in Dearborn. Hey, why not attend both meetings? I won't be there in person but look forward to watching the video feed. Regards, Leo