Hallo, On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Michael Adams <madams@netcologne.de> wrote:
2) Stick to policy for subsequent allocations. In our case this means additional unneccessary work. Anyway it ends in a /29 for us.
Isn't it better to change that procedure to not require unnecessary work? The space is reserved for growth and to contain fragmentation. Instead of increasing the initial allocation I propose to make it easier to request subsequent allocations from the prior reserved /29. A short notice "hey, we are growing" should be enough. If it's not, then we need to change that. Handing out /29 initially might lead to over-generous network planing, but one should not be having problems getting the rest of one's /29 when growing! But maybe I am just not getting your point?! regards. danrl -- Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de