![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c8b07e6470c2405d49929e19de4abba0.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Andy Linton wrote:
Chris Wedgwood wrote:
I don't follow; surely we have a situation where providers in the past have carved up a say /20 for clients -- and when a client moves this /20 might then need to become sixeteen /24 routes (or a /21, a /22, a /23 and two /24 or whatever).
No. It's still a /20 with a single /24 hole punched in it. If the net ends up with a policy that only allows prefixes up to /20 on the backbone then the bozo who moves and won't renumber looses. He may 'own' the address space but it's no damn use to him.
I may be missing the point here, but in a situation where the net won't route longer prefixes than /20, doesn't punching a /24 hole in a /20 render the entire /20 unusable, not just the /24 - because the carrier who formally advertised the /20 now has to advertise a bunch of /21,/22,/23 and /24 prefixes to cover the remainder? Cheers Si --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog