Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
Dear all, In my presentation to the Working Group at RIPE 38 [0] I brought up the issue of assignment policies for ISPs wanting to assign all customers a fixed size network (/29). The RIPE NCC is experiencing an increase of requests for this type of setup and would therefore like the community's input on this matter. There is no specific mention of broadband connections or fixed-boundary assignments in the current policy. However, we believe that the policy now requires LIRs to make assignments on the usage-based requirements of the subscriber. This is consistent with the RIRs' goal of conservation. The method of assigning a standard prefix size is certainly quite wasteful as one quarter of the space is lost on network and broadcast addresses. The requester justification for this assignment method is an estimation of the number of customers taking IP based services or having multiple Internet connected terminals at home. As a reference, it may be worth noting that in recent discussions on the IETF mailing list, Bernard Aboba estimates [1] that currently 27% of homes have multiple 'PCs'. It is difficult to predict the take-up of non-Internet IP-based services. Based on the above, we would like the Working Group to consider whether: - a standard, fixed-boundary assignment is acceptable for residential broadband connections? Or - should the requester (the LIR) be required to ask the subscriber how many IP devices will be connected and base the assignment upon this? Regards, leo vegoda RIPE NCC Hostmaster [0] http://www.ripe.int/ripe/wg/lir/present/ [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg10586.html
Hello everyone, It is my experience, both as a former RIR employee and as a former employee of a large residential DSL provider in the United States, that by affording all residential broadband provider the flexibility to make address policy along a fixed /29 boundary will result in MORE conservation of address space, not less. Residential broadband is a market that is demand driven. The RIRs should be seeking to take addressing out of the competitive side of the market, and equal the playing field for all providers in the name of address conservation. It has been my experience that customers will ask for MORE address space (3+ usable, publicly-unique addresses), not less (I only have one PC, so obviously I only need 1), when given a choice. If, other factors being equal, customers can shop broadband providers on the basis of 'how much publicly unique address space will you provide me', an imbalance will inevitably result - the long-term consequences of which would be increased IP wastage. RIPE needs to allow providers to assign /29s to residential broadband customers without question and apply its justification policies only for residential assignments shorter than a /29. /david *--------------------------------* | Global Crossing IP Engineering | | Manager, Global IP Addressing | | TEL: +1 908 720-6182 | | FAX: +1 703 464-0802 | *--------------------------------*
All, I would agree that the idea of /29 per residential customer is nice from a mangement point of view but I do believe that the extra overhead for handling the 141 form for each customer is required and that the assigned IP space should be on a per customer basis. As mentioned in many of the replies, customers and management are not aware of the RIPE IP assignement policies and need to know about this. Unfortunaly is has to be done and the marketing argument that competition provides as many IPs are the customer wishes is no solution to the problem. I've been handling IP addressing for a few service providers over the last 4-5 years and I do believe that IP addressing should be done on an indiviual basis that corresponds to the customer profile, even for residential customers. my 0.02$ Thomas
Hi Leo, I have a few problems with several of the issues you have raised here. As regards assigning broadband customers a standard block, I think this is ignoring two very important features of everyone's favorite form, ripe-141, in particular the three year IP requirement and the potential to use NAT. In my experience, most residential customers are quite happy to use private IP addresses, especially those unfamiliar with internet security. As most home users only want something faster than their modem, there are few problems with this, other than Napster and netscape messenger not working. For those customers requiring real IP addressing, I find that many of these are businesses. As such, it is very limiting to leave them with a /29 (only five IP addresses usable to the customer) Especially if this is to be their assignment for the next three years. While I can see the time that can be saved by offering a standard IP assignment, I do not feel this is in the spirit of the 141 in determining the exact IP requirements of the customer. My main object is with assignment based on usage requirements . I know people who run offices with dozens of people of a dual channel ISDN line. Does this make them less worthy of IP addreses that a single home user with a 3Mb DSL line? I know that IP conservation is now more important than ever, but surely this could be policed better by promoting the use of private IP addressing, rather than by restricting users who cannot afford to buy more bandwidth. R At 16:34 07/02/01 +0100, you wrote:
Dear all,
In my presentation to the Working Group at RIPE 38 [0] I brought up the issue of assignment policies for ISPs wanting to assign all customers a fixed size network (/29).
The RIPE NCC is experiencing an increase of requests for this type of setup and would therefore like the community's input on this matter.
There is no specific mention of broadband connections or fixed-boundary assignments in the current policy. However, we believe that the policy now requires LIRs to make assignments on the usage-based requirements of the subscriber. This is consistent with the RIRs' goal of conservation.
The method of assigning a standard prefix size is certainly quite wasteful as one quarter of the space is lost on network and broadcast addresses.
The requester justification for this assignment method is an estimation of the number of customers taking IP based services or having multiple Internet connected terminals at home.
As a reference, it may be worth noting that in recent discussions on the IETF mailing list, Bernard Aboba estimates [1] that currently 27% of homes have multiple 'PCs'. It is difficult to predict the take-up of non-Internet IP-based services.
Based on the above, we would like the Working Group to consider whether:
- a standard, fixed-boundary assignment is acceptable for residential broadband connections?
Or
- should the requester (the LIR) be required to ask the subscriber how many IP devices will be connected and base the assignment upon this?
Regards,
leo vegoda RIPE NCC Hostmaster [0] http://www.ripe.int/ripe/wg/lir/present/ [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg10586.html
In my experience, most residential customers are quite happy to use private IP addresses
I must respectively disagree, and disagree vehemently. In my experiences, residential broadband customers, paying high monthly fees, demand publicly routable IP address space, citing both the very 'limitations' of private address space you articulate (e.g. Napster and other IP-dependent applications) and sales pitches of other providers who are willing to give them publicly unique address space just to close the deal.
For those customers requiring real IP addressing, I find that many of these are businesses. As such, it is very limiting to leave them with a /29
We are not discussing commercial broadband customers. The fixed-boundary assignment 'proposal' is exclusively for residential broadband customers.
My main object is with assignment based on usage requirements . I know people who run offices with dozens of people of a dual channel ISDN line. Does this make them less worthy of IP addreses that a single home user with a 3Mb DSL line?
IP requirements for commercial customers are based on traditional address policies - as such, organizations can obtain as much address space as they require based on justification. No one is ever denied address space which they can justify, right?
I know that IP conservation is now more important than ever, but surely this could be policed better by promoting the use of private IP addressing, rather than by restricting users who cannot afford to buy more bandwidth.
Those who use private addressing schemes should certainly feel good about themselves, but no one is being restricted. If you can justify address space per the published criteria, you get it. More importantly, the conservationist's desire to promote the use of private address space should not take precedence over real-world business concerns. Market demand for residential DSL is high, and in many markets, IPs have become a selling point. By allowing fixed-boundary assignments, RIPE effectively removes that facet of competition, equalling and opening the playing field to all and reducing IP waste in the long-term. /david
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In message <Pine.GSO.4.21.0102071649210.7706-100000@shell1.phx.gblx.net> , David R Huberman <huberman@gblx.net> writes
In my experience, most residential customers are quite happy to use private IP addresses
I must respectively disagree, and disagree vehemently. In my experiences, residential broadband customers, paying high monthly fees, demand publicly routable IP address space, citing both the very 'limitations' of private address space you articulate (e.g. Napster and other IP-dependent applications) and sales pitches of other providers who are willing to give them publicly unique address space just to close the deal. [...] More importantly, the conservationist's desire to promote the use of private address space should not take precedence over real-world business concerns. Market demand for residential DSL is high, and in many markets, IPs have become a selling point.
This debate sounds very like the static v dynamic IP debate for dialups. The people saying "NAT is good enough" are like the people saying "dialup customers don't need static IP". Well, such people are wrong. My opinion: it is not RIPE's job to restrict the type of service that an ISP provides in the name of "IP conservation". Conservation is important, but it is done by ensuring good practice, not by imposing arbitrary rules that prevent ISPs from providing innovative services. I'm agnostic on the /29 proposal, though I suspect it will save time and effort all round. But residential ADSL customers should be able to get reasonable amounts of IP space (and /30 is *not* reasonable) without significant pain. - -- Clive D.W. Feather | Internet Expert | Work: <clive@demon.net> Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 | Demon Internet | Home: <clive@davros.org> Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 | Thus plc | Web: <http://www.davros.org> Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQEVAwUBOoLInSNAHP3TFZrhAQFPyQgAj/fzhFyDaqkt+uYi94EYWgxk4VoT6YS/ Vl34sS4ikKusirEW/89mOeq4CJJ9RuY0zSEOtIKxbQfxhftqkm6eqJhOQC6aCszp Du8eBtI1Lt8l12MNjzrjf9HQnn/+H9zFjAQ+hjXygVQre6h/jIdRyGB/Fd8h6tJQ sg9O2g+HhInLfN27PkFS/4EHFaCabP85bx5fZYUjW9aBO6wTTFVBCH+BtNjL5ORZ vkTax3xDIroSo/AAxqcf0v9J4JGOz+UQlnGAtQbKuEKQM+h02x1WCCOLZXS3vG95 4wIeKLRoPcKm7IWl7YoqJjSjC+uG8gUnpG4Z4OwWeALnEwWjSTDmJw== =wnPy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This debate sounds very like the static v dynamic IP debate for dialups. The people saying "NAT is good enough" are like the people saying "dialup customers don't need static IP". Well, such people are wrong.
I don't think anyone is sitting on the extreme side of the fence. To use your example, its fair to say that most dialup customers don't need static IP, and those that do should get what they need.
My opinion: it is not RIPE's job to restrict the type of service that an ISP provides in the name of "IP conservation". Conservation is important, but it is done by ensuring good practice, not by imposing arbitrary rules that prevent ISPs from providing innovative services.
Thats what we're discussing. :-)
I'm agnostic on the /29 proposal, though I suspect it will save time and effort all round. But residential ADSL customers should be able to get reasonable amounts of IP space (and /30 is *not* reasonable) without significant pain.
As I said anyone who needs more than 1 IP address should really be able to justify it. Regards, Neil.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Neil J. McRae wrote:
I don't think anyone is sitting on the extreme side of the fence. To use your example, its fair to say that most dialup customers don't need static IP, and those that do should get what they need.
I'm very inclined to agree. Unfortunately, telco marketing departments have subzero IP clue. So, what are the implications if telco xDSL LIR's start handing out /29's as standard netnames? 1. Millions of /29 objects in the RIPE database. 2. Millions of /29 RIPE-141 requests (noting that the startup LIR's will have AW=0). 3. RIPE is effectively powerless to force deallocation. Literally, the order of magnitude is 10^6. No. 3 is based on experience - RIPE NCC being community based, it is hard to take space away from users. I'm not referring to unused LIR /16's here. Another gotcha for the policy-enforcers: RIPE NCC does not set operational policy. I don't speak on RIPE's behalf but I do know several staff personally and although this is never explicit, the conservation of IP space is not achieved through stating "You may only have this many for this function". Any address *usage* is acceptable, as long as there is one. This is a subtle gotcha. I have known the NCC make recommendations, and I'm sure this discussion will lead to one. I would suggest that, as well as approaching the LIR wg, the NCC approaches the xDSL providers en masse directly to achieve a consensus. I doubt that every telco beginner LIR is reading this. Can I also point to RFC3021, using 31-bit prefixes for point-to-point links? This is relevant. Joshua
On Friday 09 February 2001 09:46, Joshua Goodall wrote:>
Can I also point to RFC3021, using 31-bit prefixes for point-to-point links? This is relevant.
I see little point in giving a user one usable IP address by assigning eitehr a /31 or /30 to the point to point link. All you achive with that is wasting *2 or *4 the number of IP addresses used. All we need to do it route a /32 down the link - as we alredy do for all out dialu customers - be then dynamic or statically assigned. I think one nice solution would be to allocate all users one /32 that is routed down the connection, and also one /24 of private IP address space - NATed by the ISP. This way - a user may use mutiple machines without any effort (by using the /24) yet can have an unrestricted access to the internet by using the /32. If the /24 is a 'stanard' range agree amonst us that would probably make things easier. Do windows boxes have a default private IP it assigns to ethernert interfaces? If so, using that seems like a good option. regards, aid -- Adrian Bool | http://noc.vianetworks.net/ Director, Global Network | tel://+44.1925.484061/ VIA NET.WORKS Inc. | fax://+44.1925.484466/
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Adrian Bool wrote:
I see little point in giving a user one usable IP address by assigning eitehr a /31 or /30 to the point to point link. All you achive with that is wasting *2 or *4 the number of IP addresses used.
Sure, this is true. But you've missed my point. Unless RIPE chooses to decide the network architecture for ISPs - which it has never done before, and is surely unenforceable - these remain recommendations at best.
If the /24 is a 'stanard' range agree amonst us that would probably make things easier. Do windows boxes have a default private IP it assigns to ethernert interfaces? If so, using that seems like a good option.
yes, they do - they follow the DHCP expectations and use 169.254.0.0/16 (see http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manning-dsua-06.txt) but that is a block that should never be routed. joshua
My 2 pence. Overloaded NAT space for users is fine if that's what they've been sold. If the user is expecting to see real address space and a network that can be reached from everywhere then overloaded NAT is not going to go down well. Most users though, as someone mentioned earlier, are simply after fast surfing so reachability is not a problem. Certainly I would be more than happy with rfc1918 space and a fast connection. With the correct hardware doing to overloaded NAT users should find few programs that won't work properly. This approach would probably split the user base into home and business where business require reachability and home users do not. Hence we can conserve space by developing two service offerings so that only users that need addresses get them - as it should be! All the best Matthew
-----Original Message----- From: owner-lir-wg@ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Adrian Bool Sent: 09 February 2001 11:36 To: Joshua Goodall Cc: lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
On Friday 09 February 2001 09:46, Joshua Goodall wrote:>
Can I also point to RFC3021, using 31-bit prefixes for point-to-point links? This is relevant.
I see little point in giving a user one usable IP address by assigning eitehr a /31 or /30 to the point to point link. All you achive with that is wasting *2 or *4 the number of IP addresses used.
All we need to do it route a /32 down the link - as we alredy do for all out dialu customers - be then dynamic or statically assigned.
I think one nice solution would be to allocate all users one /32 that is routed down the connection, and also one /24 of private IP address space - NATed by the ISP.
Adrian Bool said:
I think one nice solution would be to allocate all users one /32 that is routed down the connection, and also one /24 of private IP address space - NATed by the ISP.
This way - a user may use mutiple machines without any effort (by using the /24) yet can have an unrestricted access to the internet by using the /32.
If it's "unrestricted", how do I run two web servers ? -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive@demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 Internet Expert | Home: <clive@davros.org> | Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | DFax: +44 20 8371 4037 Thus plc | | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
On 2001-02-12T08:57:12, "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net> said:
This way - a user may use mutiple machines without any effort (by using the /24) yet can have an unrestricted access to the internet by using the /32. If it's "unrestricted", how do I run two web servers ?
Virtual hosting, like you are supposed to anyway. Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Brie <lars.marowsky-bree@sap.com> SuSE Linux AG at the SAP LinuxLab - lmb@suse.de -- Perfection is our goal, excellence will be tolerated. -- J. Yahl
On Monday 12 February 2001 08:57, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Adrian Bool said:
I think one nice solution would be to allocate all users one /32 that is routed down the connection, and also one /24 of private IP address space - NATed by the ISP.
This way - a user may use mutiple machines without any effort (by using the /24) yet can have an unrestricted access to the internet by using the /32.
If it's "unrestricted", how do I run two web servers ?
MMM.. let's alter your question a little - how you do run 10,000 web servers? You can't create a generic allocation based upon any possible need. Nothing states that the user may not apply for more IP space in the normal fashion - if they so require it. It's just that will the private block and one public address 95% (or greater?) of the users will be sorted. If the user is setting multiple servers on the end if their DSL connection they should be able to get an IP allocation form filled in. Regards, aid -- Adrian Bool | http://noc.vianetworks.net/ Director, Global Network | tel://+44.1925.484061/ VIA NET.WORKS Inc. | fax://+44.1925.484466/
Hiya, On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 05:34:00PM -0700, in message <Pine.GSO.4.21.0102071649210.7706-100000@shell1.phx.gblx.net>, David R Huberman (huberman@gblx.net) wrote: Re: Re: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments [...]
We are not discussing commercial broadband customers. The fixed-boundary assignment 'proposal' is exclusively for residential broadband customers.
I get the impression that people have confused the requests we have received with a desire on our part to change the policy. The slide in question is <URL: http://www.ripe.int/ripe/wg/lir/present/sld003.html>. Can I quickly point out that RIPE NCC is not proposing a change to the policy - merely asking the Working Group to discuss the policy and decide what it ought to be. Many thanks, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Bloke
The answer to this slides is quick and easy: The justification for the demand is wrong, so the demand has to be denied. Those type of access noted in the slides should be (from the implementations point of view) possible with private/NAT IP space, too. Thus you cannot justify a possible future IP demand with a false implementation of services. There might be other justifications, but widely deployed Internet TV and VoIP which is designed to need non-private IP space at the customers side is the proof for that something is wrong with the implementation of Internet TV and VoIP. This is simply a mathematical fact as there are less IPs (4 Billion) than possible customers (5 Billion, and for VoIP plus Internet-TV you then need 10 Billion IPs). Here the full story: a) Internet TV. I can get video streams with my NATted IPs without *any* problem. The only thing to give Internet TV watchers a non-private IP is for marketing, to identify the consumer. Thus alone from the privacy side of view this demand has to be declined. As the customers don't have the knowledge themself somebody should take care of it. And I have no problems with this if RIPE protects the innocent ;) b) VoIP. VoIP needs an assigned IP if you want to be called. This can be regarded as a bug in the standard. It definitively should be possible to do VoIP over NATted lines *with* the possibility to receive a call, too! Thus, from an administrative point of view of people who are responsible for the security of corporate networks, there should be a way to hide the complete corporate behind a VoIP gateway and make it possible to route this service directly into the telephony gateway. To be usable the service must be able to distinct between different endpoints without need to consult a directory. A second thing is that VoIP has a privacy problem, because you can decode the VoIP packets without problems if you have access to the right internet node (router). Thus there is really nothing wrong with such VoIP gateways who concentrate such connections, there is something seriously wrong with VoIP and nobody should point to things like IPsec, because it takes decades until it is deployed in a usable fashion. Same holds for Service Providers or ISPs. They should provide the VoIP gateway option to their customers, such that the customer does not need non-private IPs for VoIP. Thus I vote again for denying such a possible future demand. We should not do "proposed allocations on existing bugs". And this way you will see the correct implementations to do Internet TV and VoIP will spring in existence very quickly by demand, such that NAT users can start to use them, too. Besides: Yes, this renders the Microsoft implementation "Net2Phone" as unusable as it should be. It's rediculous not even to consider Proxies or NAT-Gateways. And no, you simply cannot do as described in the Net2Phone doc as there just do not exist 100K ports in IP to hide a bigger corporate network behind 1 IP. And if you have to use more than 1 IP there is something wrong with the service, as all newer services *have* to be designed with IPv4 conservation in mind. ----- Original Message ----- From: "leo vegoda" <leo@ripe.net> To: <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 2:47 PM Subject: Re: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
Hiya,
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 05:34:00PM -0700, in message <Pine.GSO.4.21.0102071649210.7706-100000@shell1.phx.gblx.net>, David R Huberman (huberman@gblx.net) wrote: Re: Re: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
[...]
We are not discussing commercial broadband customers. The fixed-boundary assignment 'proposal' is exclusively for residential broadband customers.
I get the impression that people have confused the requests we have received with a desire on our part to change the policy. The slide in question is <URL: http://www.ripe.int/ripe/wg/lir/present/sld003.html>.
Can I quickly point out that RIPE NCC is not proposing a change to the policy - merely asking the Working Group to discuss the policy and decide what it ought to be.
Many thanks,
-- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Bloke
Those type of access noted in the slides should be (from the implementations point of view) possible with private/NAT IP space, too.
because something is possible does not mean it should be done. randy
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Randy Bush wrote:
Those type of access noted in the slides should be (from the implementations point of view) possible with private/NAT IP space, too.
because something is possible does not mean it should be done.
And contrary - because something is convenient or attractive does not mean it is the right way to do. The philosophy will not help too much here. I can suggest to pollute the earth more aggressively, just to speed up the space colonisation; nobody would take me seriously before the technics for latter are severely improved. (Read: I can suggest to waste the IPv4 more aggressively, just to speed up the IPv6 implementation; nobody would take me seriously before the application side for latter is severely improved.) Supporting conservationist's point of view.. -- Tarmo Ainsaar EENet
Hi, On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 05:02:58PM +0100, Valentin Hilbig wrote:
Those type of access noted in the slides should be (from the implementations point of view) possible with private/NAT IP space, too. Thus you cannot justify a possible future IP demand with a false implementation of services.
Just to make sure this is clear: current policy does NOT force NAT and private space on anyone. It is made sure that requestors have thought about private address space and then decided to apply for public IP space, but no pressure is applied(!). There are lots of applications that do not work properly with NAT (most kind of "incoming multimedia apps", like CuSeeMee, Netmeeting, etc.) and those will gain in popularity in the years to come. So while NAT will work for some, it is not a solution for everybody.
There might be other justifications, but widely deployed Internet TV and VoIP which is designed to need non-private IP space at the customers side is the proof for that something is wrong with the implementation of Internet TV and VoIP.
No - it just shows that the IETF is right with their belief that "NAT is evil" (not all IETF activists, but many).
This is simply a mathematical fact as there are less IPs (4 Billion) than possible customers (5 Billion, and for VoIP plus Internet-TV you then need 10 Billion IPs).
Yes. This is why we should go to IPv6 as quickly as possible. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Two things to this from my side: 1) A /30 is even more waste and a /28 is usually not needed, so a /29 sounds reasonable if we are speaking of dumb modems. 2) However what should be discussed is if it is really impossible to assign a /30 which allows the use of 4 IP addresses. For this all you need is a clever DSL router with (yes, yuck!) Proxy-ARP enabled and disabled Broadcast-Option. I did a similiar setup for an Intranet on private IPs (thus conservation criterias were not interesting) and it was quite successfull as all those braindead NT boxes then had no problem to find each other. The advantage of this type of setup is that you can place the Router's IP at the "edge of the block" outside of the "smaller IP area", thus again conserve more IPs as all DLS modems within this block share the same IP address (on the interface side to the customer. If the DSL modem needs an IP for administration this can taken out of a private IP block. For ICMP/Traceroute the shared public IP can be utilized easily, the DSL modem itself does not need to be reachable from Internet. Note that for the intranet I did this to simplify networking setup of non-DHCP roaming machines, as all that has to be changed was the IP, netmask, gateway and routing table stayed unchanged everywhere). The idea is to have one huge network where the DSL's are connected to. Each endpoint gets a usable block of /30, thus 4 IPs. However the netmask is /24 or comparable (in the Intranet it was /16 and the locations got a /24). So you are allowed to use 4 IPs out of a bigger block and you can use them transparently because of the Proxy Arp. Users who are paranoied of such a setup because many braindead (namely Microsoft) tools out there treat IPs as "local" based on the netmask, can still fall back to a standard /30 setup, thus reducing their usable IPs to 1. So you have best of both: Either 1 IP usable for "standard Surfers" or 4 public usable for "power users" (as Power Users should have a DMZ this then is viable). And if this is not enough it's simple to extend it without waste by 4 more IPs which don't need to be aggregated ;) Another thing that happens with this setup is that the "lowest and the highest" Sub-Block cannot be given to the customer. This way you get two areas (3 usable IPs from 0 up and 2 from top down) which are "link local". I used it the way that I placed "public well known services" in the top block (like Nameservers and so) and "real local services" in the bottom. This is easy to remember as well. At locations where there was no dedicated "public well known services server" in the top block this was "imported" using a dedicated tunnel to a suitable server at another location. This should simplify network setup for the provider, too. I know what I write here. I know the implications. I know the objections. I know why I would do it ;) The only thing I want is to note it that with a little effort conservation can be done much more effectively (as this model halves the IP demand but reduces the usable IPs only by 1). However I don't recommend to take such a crude model as a "standard way", but one should keep it in mind for future developement. -Tino ----- Original Message ----- From: "leo vegoda" <leo@ripe.net> To: <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 4:34 PM Subject: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
Dear all,
In my presentation to the Working Group at RIPE 38 [0] I brought up the issue of assignment policies for ISPs wanting to assign all customers a fixed size network (/29).
The RIPE NCC is experiencing an increase of requests for this type of setup and would therefore like the community's input on this matter.
There is no specific mention of broadband connections or fixed-boundary assignments in the current policy. However, we believe that the policy now requires LIRs to make assignments on the usage-based requirements of the subscriber. This is consistent with the RIRs' goal of conservation.
The method of assigning a standard prefix size is certainly quite wasteful as one quarter of the space is lost on network and broadcast addresses.
The requester justification for this assignment method is an estimation of the number of customers taking IP based services or having multiple Internet connected terminals at home.
As a reference, it may be worth noting that in recent discussions on the IETF mailing list, Bernard Aboba estimates [1] that currently 27% of homes have multiple 'PCs'. It is difficult to predict the take-up of non-Internet IP-based services.
Based on the above, we would like the Working Group to consider whether:
- a standard, fixed-boundary assignment is acceptable for residential broadband connections?
Or
- should the requester (the LIR) be required to ask the subscriber how many IP devices will be connected and base the assignment upon this?
Regards,
leo vegoda RIPE NCC Hostmaster [0] http://www.ripe.int/ripe/wg/lir/present/ [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg10586.html
leo vegoda wrote:
Based on the above, we would like the Working Group to consider whether:
- a standard, fixed-boundary assignment is acceptable for residential broadband connections?
IMHO, no. Why should the amount of address space assigned have anything to do with the way that a network is connected to the outside world?
Or
- should the requester (the LIR) be required to ask the subscriber how many IP devices will be connected and base the assignment upon this?
Yes, but maybe a simplfied version of ripe-141 might be adopted for these cases. Perhaps, where the amount address space being requested is small, the addressing plan and much of the request overview could be omitted. For example, reduce "addresses-immediate", "addresses-year-1", "addresses-year-2" to a single "addresses-immediate" (or "addresses-year-2"?) question; "subnets-immediate", "subnets-year-1", "subnets-year-2" could all be assumed to be 1 (subnetting a /29 doesn't make sense as you lose too much address space to net and broadcast addresses); PI-requested is inappropriate if such a small amount of address space is expected to be routed throughout the Internet. That would leave the service provider with a simple form something like: ---------- #[OVERVIEW OF ORGANIZATION TEMPLATE]# Private individual's home network #[REQUESTER TEMPLATE]# name: <all pre-completed by provider> organisation: country: phone: fax-no: (optional) e-mail: #[USER TEMPLATE]# name: country: phone: fax-no: (optional) e-mail: #[REQUEST OVERVIEW TEMPLATE]# request-size: addresses-immediate: inet-connect: <pre-completed by provider> country-net: <pre-completed by provider> ---------- This assumes that no address space is being returned, etc. which would complicate matters and make it simpler to revert to using the normal ripe-141 form. James
James Aldridge writes:
Yes, but maybe a simplfied version of ripe-141 might be adopted for these cases.
Why? We can assume that the provider's AW is larger than 8. So to fulfil RIPE requirements, it suffices to have have a form with user's address, number of computers permanently online and a statement that NAT is not sufficient, or some conditions a bit weaker. created. Robert
James Aldridge wrote:
leo vegoda wrote:
Based on the above, we would like the Working Group to consider whether:
- a standard, fixed-boundary assignment is acceptable for residential broadband connections?
IMHO, no. Why should the amount of address space assigned have anything to do with the way that a network is connected to the outside world?
I think the important bit is the word "residential" and not the connection method. -- Leigh Porter Cable and Wireless
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, leo vegoda wrote:
- a standard, fixed-boundary assignment is acceptable for residential broadband connections?
Like Wilfried and few other people already pointed out: it's pointless to try distinguishing between residential and business customers, like phone companies do it. They have a strong reason to do it, since they want to impose separate call charges for those two categories of customers. I think it's better to discuss whether we still want to register /29's in the RIPE Database - or to treat them like we treat /30's now (that is - not register each /29 in the database). Regards, Beri --------- Berislav Todorovic, Network Engineer --------- ------- KPNQwest N.V. - IP NOC (formerly EUnet NOC) ------- ---- Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 78, 2595 AN Den Haag, NL ---- --- Phone: +31-70-379-3990; Mobile: +31-651-333-641 --- -- Email: beri@kpnqwest.net <=> beri@EU.net -- --- _ _ ____ _ .--. ____ ____ __/_ --- ----- /__/ /___/ /\ / / / | / /___/ /___ / ------ ------ _/ \_ / _/ \/ (__.\ |/\/ /___ ____/ (__. -----
participants (19)
-
Adrian Bool -
Berislav Todorovic -
Clive D.W. Feather -
Clive D.W. Feather -
David R Huberman -
Gert Doering, Netmaster -
James Aldridge -
Joshua Goodall -
Lars Marowsky-Bree -
Leigh Porter -
leo vegoda -
Matthew Robinson -
Neil J. McRae -
Randy Bush -
Robert Kiessling -
Robin -
Tarmo Ainsaar -
Thomas Kernen -
Valentin Hilbig