On 6/20/2011 7:44 AM, Steve Richardson wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Jared Mauch<ja...@puck.nether.net> wrote:
On Jun 20, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Bret Clark wrote:
Personally I would charge them for the /24 too, makes users think twice about
the need for a block that large.
We do charge them for addresses already and cost doesn't come into
play. We charge for assignments shorter than /28 to discourage IP
hogs.
I would also give them a /64 per lan (alt: broadcast domain) as well to allow
them to start working with IPv6 for their email.
- Jared
They have inquired about IPv6 already, but it's only gone so far as
that. I would gladly give them a /64 and be done with it, but my
concern is that they are going to want several /64 subnets for the
same reason and I don't really *think* it's a legitimate reason. Bear
in mind that "legitimate" in this context is referring to the
justification itself, not their business model.
Thanks,
steve
Did everyone miss that the customer didn't request a /24, they requested
a "/24s worth in even more dis-contiguous blocks". I can only think of
one reason why a customer would specifically ask for that. They are
concerned that they'll get blacklisted. They're hoping if they do, it
will be a small block of many rather than one entire block.
When customers make strange requests without giving a good explanation,
I have to assume they're up to something.
Jason
