Re: [address-policy-wg] Allocation vs assignment question

[Gert Doering gert@localhost]

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 01:09:19PM +0200, Makc The Great wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 10:08:00AM +0200, Makc The Great wrote:
> >> My question is am I correct in assuming that all "assigned" IPs are on
> >> same physical network that all other IPs in their "sub-allocation"
> >> range?
> >
> >Definitely not.
>
> So, if you have IP range A.B.C.* allocated to you, and assigns A.B.C.D
> to someone else, A.B.C.D may be plugged in any switch on the internet,
> not necessary yours?

That's not what I said (and is a different conclusion from the original
question).

First, the entry in the RIPE Database does not necessary correlate to
a physical "subnet" in the sense of "all these IP addresses are in a
single LAN".  Most of the time, this is not going to be the case - like
"a company getting assigned a network of a given size, and using 
subnets out of that network for different purposes, like branch offices".

Second, of course you need to make sure *routing* for the address
("A.B.C.D") works - so if you plug it in "anywhere", it will not work.

Still, A.B.C.D *could* be "anywhere" - depending on the specific 
layout of the network in question.  They could use A.B.C.* for VPN 
connections, and route the individual addresses via IPSEC tunnels to
"anywhere".


Summary: you cannot draw any definite conclusion about physical or
geographic setup from the RIPE (or any other) database.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  98999

SpaceNet AG                    Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14      Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-234

Attachment: pgp3dgb9uOFz5.pgp
Description: PGP signature