On 22 October 2010 01:24, David Croft <david@sargasso.net> wrote:
On 21 October 2010 14:23, James Blessing <james.blessing@despres.co.uk> wrote:
I have 256 machines and 1 router, that's 257 addresses required. Under the new wording I can't then have a /23 because I have a requirement for 253 more addresses to make it up...
Under that circumstance you'd get a /23 under existing policy.
Really? Not a /24 and a /29?
The intent seems to be that if you'd normally be assigned a /29-/25, it's rounded up to a /24. The limit of 248 addresses presumably being to stop abuse, by enabling the NCC to assess this 'slack' across multiple allocations.
Oh, I agree with what the policy is trying to do. My problem is the wording just needs a little tweak (see my previous suggestion) J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476