Re: ripe-104++
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 23:05:37 -0600 (CST)
I am not sure that I am understanding You correctly,
or perhaps I didn't understood ripe-104++,
I really think that i am not understanding something.
On Wed, 24 Jan 1996, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
> >- One address for a router
> >- One address for a Web-Server
> >- One address for a firewall
> >- up to 5 additional addresses for "other purposes".
>
> >In such cases, they will be allocated 8 or 16 addresses,
> > ( netmask 240 or 248 ).
>
> Neither is this situation, nor in the case depicted later, I do see a
> case for a full-blown assignment transaction.
>
> I would assume that the ISP connecting that web server has the
> addressesd assigned and manages the adress(es) needed to configure the
> technical stuff.
I think it is a wrong assumption, the customer wants to manage his
stuff, if a customer wanted the ISP to manage it, than it could
be on the ISP site, with an ISP address, it would be a lot more
cheaper. this is not the case I was talking about.
> And assuming that you've got more than one server to
> support, *you* might want to do an addressing plan and some assessment
> of your network development....
During the last months, I have noticed a serious increase in
requests for the following setup:
[ISP]-------/_______(WAN connection)_____[Customer]
|
|
------------- Customer External LAN ----------
| | |
| | |
[Web host] [1 or 2 PC's] [Firewall+Proxy]
|
|
--------------- Internal LAN ------------(Private Address space)
This is typical for a company running a Web-Server, that
doesn't want to renumber, or to expose the internal network.
The number of those companies connecting to the Internet
is growing everyday.
This company will want to manage her DNS, such that some
formal network assignment is a must.
(Of course an LIR/ISP can fool the system, but I don't think
that it's the goal of ripe-104++, nor in the mid to long range
the interest of the ISP's. IHMO we are looking for a good, and
viable solution.)
>
> And if you decide to formally tell your customer about the individual
> address from your assignment to be used, then this can be seen as local
> matters.
I didn't see an opening in RIPE-104++ for a provider LIR, to assign
himself networks as belonging to him, and to assign it to
a customer unformally. If it is the case, and if it is done
without limitations, then there will be no control on address
space. Perhaps it could be the way to do what implement what
I proposed, as long as it is limited to 8 or 16 IP addresses
per customer.
But if one LIR can distribute address space "under his name" without
any limitation, how are we going to achieve the goal of address
space preservation.
Do You think that an ISP LIR will be able to drop a big deal,
because the customer ask for 16 class C's, while only one or two
would be justified, and the LIR can reassign from his "own" pool
as much as he want ?
>
> There's a difference, of course, if your're talking about a VSE with a
> LAN (IP based) that gets connected and might decide to become dual-homed...
I doubt that a network with 8 ip addresses would like to be dual homed,
but if there is such a case, I would definatly go fo a carefull planning,
and follow all the current ripe-104++ procedures, and even more !!
So I really think that I am misunderstanding You, or missing something.
Regards,
Alain .
BGP-OSPF-IGRP-EIGRP-UDP-TCP-IP-FR-NOC-NIC-SENDMAIL-DNS-FTP-HTTP-RIPE
MAC-CISCO-UNIX FREE-BSD-LINUX
ROUTING-NAMED Alain Golan-Goldberg SUPPORT-PSION
CIX USENET
PPP NetVision - Commercial Israeli Internet Provider IOS
SLIP PVC
fax://+972-4-550345;http://www.netvision.net.il;vox://+972-4-550330
