Re: [address-policy-wg] Allocation vs assignment question
So, overall consensus here is like this: On 12/4/06, Amar <amar@telia.net> wrote:
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?
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
On 12/4/06, Amar <amar@telia.net> wrote:
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
Hey Amar, I thought you have just forgot to include cc to this list, I am sorry, and I took only a part of your e-mail because I thought it sums up everything people wrote in reply to my original message. Perhaps I simply shouldn't put your name on it. Then yes I did believed "that all assigned addresses had to be on the same physical network". And that's why I am asking about "Sub-allocations are intended to aid the goal of routing aggregation" part, and "you" in my "could you please explain" refers to all people on the list. I am sorry for causing this confusion.
participants (2)
-
Amar -
Makc The Great