blank.gif (43 bytes)

Church Of The
Swimming Elephant

2.2 Distributed allocation of address space Connected: An Internet Encyclopedia
2.2 Distributed allocation of address space

Up: Connected: An Internet Encyclopedia
Up: Requests For Comments
Up: RFC 1519
Up: 2. CIDR address allocation
Prev: 2.1 Aggregation and its limitations
Next: 3. Cost-benefit analysis

2.2 Distributed allocation of address space

2.2 Distributed allocation of address space

The basic idea of the plan is to allocate one or more blocks of Class C network numbers to each network service provider. Organizations using the network service provider for Internet connectivity are allocated bitmask-oriented subsets of the provider's address space as required.

It is also worthwhile to mention that once inter-domain protocols which support classless network destinations are widely deployed, the rules described by this plan generalize to permit arbitrary super/subnetting of the remaining class A and class B address space (the assumption being that classless inter-domain protocols will either allow for non-contiguous subnets to exist in the system or that all components of a sub-allocated class A/B will be contained within a single routing domain). This will allow this plan to continue to be used in the event that the class C space is exhausted before implementation of a long-term solution is deployed. This alternative is discussed further below in section 6.

Hierarchical sub-allocation of addresses in this manner implies that clients with addresses allocated out of a given service provider are, for routing purposes, part of that service provider and will be routed via its infrastructure. This implies that routing information about multi-homed organizations, i.e., organizations connected to more than one network service provider, will still need to be known by higher levels in the hierarchy.

The advantages of hierarchical assignment in this fashion are

  1. It is expected to be easier for a relatively small number of service providers to obtain addresses from the central authority, rather than a much larger, and monotonically increasing, number of individual clients. This is not to be considered as a loss of part of the service providers' address space.

  2. Given the current growth of the Internet, a scalable and delegatable method of future allocation of network numbers has to be achieved.

For these reasons, and in the interest of providing a consistent procedure for obtaining Internet addresses, it is recommended that most, if not all, network numbers be distributed through service providers. These issues are discussed in much greater length in [2].

Next: 3. Cost-benefit analysis

Connected: An Internet Encyclopedia
2.2 Distributed allocation of address space


Protect yourself from cyberstalkers, identity thieves, and those who would snoop on you.
Stop spam from invading your inbox without losing the mail you want. We give you more control over your e-mail than any other service.
Block popups, ads, and malicious scripts while you surf the net through our anonymous proxies.
Participate in Usenet, host your web files, easily send anonymous messages, and more, much more.
All private, all encrypted, all secure, all in an easy to use service, and all for only $5.95 a month!

Service Details

Have you gone to church today?
All pages ©1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 Church of the Swimming Elephant unless otherwise stated
Church of the Swimming Elephant©1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 is a wholly owned subsidiary of Packetderm, LLC.

Packetderm, LLC
210 Park Ave #308
Worcester, MA 01609