ripe-104++

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