It was done that way here in Michigan. Each county was broken into smaller subnets from the larger /16 subnet. If all you are worrying about is small home sites that only go a few miles and want to make the subnets semi-human readable it can make since for some. However it’s not an efficient use of the space. When our group (Mi6WAN) went to get it’s first /19 there was no space left in the Michigan /16 to get us a contiguous block. You have /32-/24’s all over the place. Heck looking at 44.102/16 and it’s still like that. The coordinator went and requested another /16 for Michigan just to handle our request and our other requests. We have added another /21 and /24. 44.103/16 is being issued by subnet request and not county location in Michigan.
We have 38+ sites online right now and with the grant that we got 7 more PTP sites with 5 of those having PTMP sectors for use..
-- Fredric Moses - W8FSM - WQOG498 fred@moses.bz
On Feb 19, 2017, at 18:25, William Lewis wlewis@myhostingsource.com wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________
This also provides an opportunity for peer review in cases of misguided allocation schemes (such as breaking up a state block by county).
Tom
Tom.
Can you validate why using a county scheme is misguided?