Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
Matthew Robinson matthew at crescent.org.uk
Fri Feb 9 14:07:42 CET 2001
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 at ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg at ripe.net]On Behalf Of > Adrian Bool > Sent: 09 February 2001 11:36 > To: Joshua Goodall > Cc: lir-wg at 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.
[ lir-wg Archives ]