On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:19:31 -0800, David Josephson WA6NMF wa6nmf@josephson.com wrote:
I am puzzled that we want to assign 44-net addresses one by one as shown in amprhosts rather than as subnets. Perhaps there is a historical reason for that. The routing table could get to be very large (we can hope!)
Subnetting is reasonable to do but we still have to assign addresses in those subnets one at a time in order to get DNS entries for them and to enable them in the Internet ingress filter.
The division of the AMPRNet space into the existing blocks of addresses was primarily for administrative convenience, not as a mandated subnetting scheme.
Subnets should probably track routers/gateways; that is, each router/gateway should have a small subnet associated with it. That would help to keep the routing table at a reasonable size. Since routers often serve a specific geographical area, having regional subnets could be a fairly good way to assign addresses.
The hard question is what size region and what size subnet?
The implication is that there will be a router for each region, which is what we've been doing in many places anyway. Perhaps major cities is a reasonable way to divide an area into subnets. But there are also flat networks which need only one router even though they span multiple cities.
Ideas? - Brian