On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Brett Frankenberger <[email protected]> wrote: > Why is it not OK to get more space when you have an unused /21 that > is not adjacent to your other space, but it's OK to get more space if > you have an unused /21 hidden inside a /16?
> I support the proposal. You assert both should be OK. I assert neither should be OK, favoring the more rigorous justification criterion as better stewardship. And whether each individual allocation has to be utilized or not, the calculation method, is inherently entangled with the utilization criterion. It may be more work (more required renumbering or greater cost / more local router entries required) to efficiently utilize the /21 hidden inside the /16, in case this is not a contiguous /21, but a fragmented group of a few hundred /28s and /27s spread around the entire /16 due to lots of number releases over time, or an ineffective allocation plan. > -- Brett -- -JH _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
