Two things first: 1) If I send You a mail off list I see this as a private conversation between two parties. If I would like to make a public statement I would have sent a CC or replied to the list 2) I You decide to continiue the intended private conversation by sending my comments to the list without my consent then do not cut out pieces of the full text I wrote. But because You have already done it: Makc The Great wrote:
So, overall consensus here is like this:
I wrote (un-cut by You): Let's say that You have 192.168.0.0/16 allocated to You. You have a global backbone with services all around the world. From that You assign Acme a /24 (eg 192.168.0.0/24) and route that thru Acmes connection in London. One month later Acme comes back an requests for another /24 but this time in New York. You assign Acme 192.168.1.0/24 and route that thru their connection in New York. Now Acme has two network with a /24 on each. They are not on the same subnet but the addresses are assigned to the same organisation. Ergo: There has not to be any connection between subnets for each assignment. It is done based on the proven need and not on a physical connection between the requesters networks.
Could you please explain then what does "Sub-allocations are intended to aid the goal of routing aggregation" phrase means in english?
Your question was made in such way that I belived that You thougt that all assigned addresses had to be on the same physical network. That was what my answer was about. -- amar