On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 3:25 PM, William Lewis
<wlewis(a)myhostingsource.com> wrote:
Can you validate why using a county scheme is
misguided?
For example, in HamWAN we have a high site that provides direct 44net
access to four counties. This site is linked to other sites that also
provide coverage to multiple counties, often overlapping. When
designing the sites' coverage, we made no attempt to limit it to
particular counties. Any allocation by county would not match the
needs of this IP network.
To build this large logical network, we started with a /20 allocation.
Had our region been divided evenly by county before we requested this
allocation, there would not have been a large enough block remaining
to assign!
I have seen an instance where a 44net region was subdivided into
counties, most with no users. Those counties that had users often had
only one or two, so there were many small allocations scattered around
the region's /16. A request for a new large network came in and the
coordinator had to reject it because he had left no contiguous space
large enough for this network. This was poor planning. (I've
intentionally left out the region's name to avoid embarrassing the
coordinator.)
Political boundaries rarely match network boundaries.
Tom KD7LXL