On 22/11/2004, at 5:54 PM, Gert Doering wrote:

Very, very true.

And for those that obtained a portable /24 from AUNIC because they were small but multi-homed? Those networks have been working just fine for the past 10 years because (a) they are addressed based on the original standard and (b) the space was allocated to them by the legitimate RIR of the time. So we penalise them because there are many larger providers who have de-aggregated their blocks to death?

Australia is a little different. The 'net uptake here was huge in the mid 90's. Many, many organisations were allocated /24's and all looked good in the world because Geoff Huston continued to announce 203/8. Now that there are more transit providers things look less "orderly" as those smaller organisations announce their /24's and there's no distinct aggregate floating around. However, I don't see this being a problem of "their convenience". More a bi-product of people doing the right thing - at least as it was at that point in time.

Dropping /24's from the original class C space would, IMHO, be wrong from a standards point of view, and unnecessarily disruptive from a connectivity point of view. That "great care" you mentioned could be applied to fix the table size without knowingly breaking things for people who "did the right thing", albeit it 10 years ago.

David ...