Re: [apops] 202.16.x.x

  • To: apops at apnic dot net
  • Subject: Re: [apops] 202.16.x.x
  • From: MAEMURA Akinori <maem at mesh dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 11:17:39 +0900
  • References: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980827090129.27355F-100000@topgun>
  • Sender:
    •  : Swee-Chuan Khoo <sckhoo at asiapac dot net> wrote
       : at Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:04:14 +0800 (SGT) ;
       :| 	i have an ISP customer who got a leased line customer
       :| with IP address ( single Class C ) acquired sometime ago before
       :| the ISP is formed, it is from the 202.16.x.x block of IP.
       :| 	I did a whois on that and found out that the first
       :| about 30 class C of this block is being given to company
       :| with wide geographical location. 
       :| 	Isn't it making the routing table huge and unmanageble?
       :| 	How do we proposed to fix this problem?
      202.16/16 is a SWAMP block in AP region like 192.0/16.  You 
      are right this isn't good for the global routability.  
      CIDRization is recommended.
      When we accept such a non-CIDRized subscriber, we ask him/
      her to renumber into some CIDRized addresses, with some
      explanation that...
        o	non-CIDRized prefixes have much less routability,
        o	a non-CIDRized prefix manages only a 256th  as 
      	large connectivity as CIDRized one.
      or something like those.
      I think We can ask but we can't make him/her to renumber,  
      he/she has to make a decision to renumber or not.  This is
      our policy, you know,  I think another policy like that ISP 
      doesn't accept non-CIDRized can be taken.
      How do you think about it ??
      MAEMURA Akinori
      	Network Engineer,
      	C&C Internet Service  mesh,  NEC Corporation, JAPAN
      	maem at mesh dot ad dot jp  ,  maemura at dot co dot jp
      *             APOPS: Asia Pacific Operations Forum              *
      * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apops-request at apnic dot net *