Re: [isp-bgp] Most inefficient use of allocation list?

[joshua sahala <jejs+bgp@...>]

On (14/06/05 14:24), nethub@... wrote:
> 
> joshua sahala wrote:
> 
> >the problem with this is who is to say what is inefficient...we may not
> >see it being utilized, but that doesn't mean that it isn't very well
> >utilized.  just because someone isn't announcing their entire allocation,
> >or you can't ping large portions of it, doesn't necessarily mean that it
> >isn't being used efficiently.  case-in-point:  IBM, 9/8 - I currently
> >only see 9.4/16 in the global tables, but I know that they make full use
> >of it internally.  what is your goal in this, to show that some of the
> >legacy /8 allocations are being 'misused' in order to force them to
> >announce all of their blocks or return the allocation?  IMHO, both goals
> >are exercises in futility
> >
> >/joshua
> > 
> >
> True, but how many of those companies could use Private IP address space 
> (RFC 1918) and have significantly lower public IP usage?  Back when 

 re-reading what i wrote, i was pointing out that some of the large,
 legacy allocations don't show up in the global routing table, and most of
 them DO use rfc1918 as well...

> Back when these companies were assigned large allocations, the thought of
> running out of IP addresses was not really as apparent as it now.

 who is running out?  have you checked the number of /8's which are
 unallocated lately?  http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

/joshua
-- 
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something 
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
	- Douglas Adams -






To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

Copyright 2005 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved.