[HECnet] Request for comments on subdividing area 9

[Cory Smelosky]

Hello!

The current way I allocate node numbers is in sequential order and it's getting tremendously messy and difficult to manage, so I am going to come up with a plan to divide things more cleanly and I'm looking for feedback.

I'm thinking: 9.1-9.21 for administration/control purposes (area routers and so forth), subdividing the area in to geographic areas (areas of ~250 each initially, the others can be further subdivided as needed), and then subdividing those geographic regions by purpose.

so:
(apologies about this chart being absolutely atrocious and useless, it functioned largely as stress relief)

9.1-9.21
	|
           V										relief
     OHIO (9.22-9.271)-----|----------------|-------------------|
	|	  	    |               	        |         		|                                       |
           V	              V	                 V	                         V	                             V			          
   (VMS)         (PDP-11)   (PDP-10)	    (OTHER)   (WORKSTATION)
9. (22-.72) (73-123)    (124-174) (175-225)          (226-278)								

And repeat for other regions.   

Should I subdivide further?   
What could I use instead of OTHER?
Should I break up the area differently?
Further suggestions?
Should I put physical hardware as a sub-sub-subdivision, its own tertiary level (in place of OTHER), or not differentiate them at all?

Let me know your thoughts.