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(a)moses.bz
On Feb 19, 2017, at 18:25, William Lewis
<wlewis(a)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?