Mark Tinka wrote:
For our DIA/Enterprise business, we offer customers a /30 for p2p
link, and a /29 as initial standard for onward assignment within their
LAN.
You could instead use a /31. Or private/enterprise-private or unnumbered
and route them the single /32 to use for their NAT on say a loopback
interface. And the /29 ? I would reserve it but not assign it without a
formal request.
Interestingly, most customers will NAT on the p2p address space, and
barely use the onward assignment. In such cases, link migrations cause
issues, because customers bake their internal configurations against
those p2p IP addresses, which are pegged to specific edge routers on
our side that can't move due to our need to minimize the iBGP
footprint in the network. It's not a major issue in absolute terms,
but a headache nonetheless.
See above.
We can offer customers up to a /24 maximum (i.e., we will let the /29
expand into a /24), and no more.
Either you have lots of fallow ground or very few customers. I dont see
how this strategy would work elsewhere.
If they need more than a /24, time to speak to AFRINIC.
We don't charge for address space. Our Sales people want us to, but we
don't feel it makes sense. It's not a big-enough deterrent for us to
keep IPv4 stock. And when we do run out of IPv4 space, it will be like
having billions of $$ on a deserted island.
Mark.
Your sales people are right. Since you can deliver quite usable service
that enables them to operate just as they have before with a single /32,
and with technical advantages to yourself, all the extra wasted integers
should be bringing in value.
And since its quite nice to assign a loopback to every CPE anyways, two
birds, one stone. Carry that in your iBGP.
Best,
Joe
