21 Oct
2010
21 Oct
'10
4:07 p.m.
On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi Scott,
It seems that section 2 is a no-op, because the space is not really reserved if it's just returned to the pool when the /8 runs out... Is that the intent?
It makes sure that there is one clearly defined /16 block reserved. Otherwise we might end up with unused fragments all over the whole /8. I don't know if that was the intent of the authors, but it might be useful and it doesn't seem to have any negative side effects.
Ok. That seems more like implementation detail than policy, but I agree it doesn't hurt. Thanks, Scott