-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA384

On 08/27/2014 04:03 PM, tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org wrote:

Not to drift too far off course, but I think you have your masking back wards or confused at least.

a /8 is 16M addresses 18.0.0.0/8 for example, so not a small block, and a /16 has 64K.

two consecutive /16's say 128.30.0.0/16 and 128.31.0.0/16 make a /15 (120.30.0.0/15)

the real concern is administrative control not addressing. for exmaple both the /8 and /15 mentioned above and some other smaller patches of addressing are all on MIT campus and part of the same administrative domain in the sense that all traffic passes through a small set of routers at some point. Being a university it doesn't imediately imply root access to all servers. this isn't true of all (or even most) /8's, nor does even a /24 with 256 addresses need to be in a single geographic or andministrative zone.

-Jon

Thanks Jon,

You're right, I had my ranges weird, even in my title, thanks for the correction. To clarify, because the nodes are physically close to one another, they are in the same /24, namely x.x.x.x - x.x.x.y. Yes, the real issues is the traffic concentration to a specific set of routers, which is why I'm asking. I'm trying to get a sense of where to draw the line, but from the responses so far it looks like I've got room to spare.

- -- Jesse V.