> From: Leo Vegoda <leo.veg...@icann.org> > Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 04:32:44 -0700 > > On 03/10/2009 8:19, "Matthew Petach" <mpet...@netflight.com> 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. This issue will be discussed in a Mark Kosters moderated panel at NANOG in Dearborn. Hey, why not attend both meetings? -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
