Re: Should we share?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Should we share?
- From: "Barry McLarnon" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 09:00:09 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <199411302136.NAA06628@nothing.ucsd.edu> from "Brian Kantor" at Nov 30, 94 01:36:19 pm
- Reply-to: email@example.com
> >Since Canada has an allotment (44.135.x.y) that is barely sufficient to
> >cover its current amateur population even if administered as a flat
> >address space, I certainly hope that we have *all* of the last 2 octets
> >to work with!
> Of course you do. The subnetting scheme discussed here applies only
> within the USA. Toth came up with some other way to split it up for
> Canada, as (presumably) did each of the other national coordinators.
Just checking. Some of the regional coordinators in the US were evidently
unaware that there were restrictions on the third octet... just wanted to
be sure that it wasn't intended to apply elsewhere.
> And if you need more space, I'll assign another block. Is every
> Canadian ham really on tcp/ip packet? That's astonishing!
Sarcasm duly noted. :-) Nope, we're not there yet, but perhaps I can
convince the authorities to issue an IP address with every callsign. :-)
To make up for the non-IP'ers, OTOH, there are quite a few folks who
need blocks of addresses for their home LANs.
Barry McLarnon VE3JF/VA3TCP | Internet: firstname.lastname@example.org
Communications Research Center | AMPRnet: email@example.com
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | FreeNet: firstname.lastname@example.org