Use DHCP, get your customers to use DHCP. Current Best Current Pratices for IP allocations (http://ftp.fc.net/rfc/rfc2050.txt) states: 5. Due to the requirement to increase the utilization efficiency of IPv4 address space, all assignments are made with the assumption that sites make use of variable length subnet mask (VLSM) and classless technologies within their network. Any request for address space based on the use of classfull assumptions will require a detailed justification. The use of classfull technologies for the purposes of administrative convenience is generally insupportable due to the limited availability of free IPv4 address space. ... 7. While it is understood that the use of static addressing may ease some aspects of administration, the current rate of consumption of the remaining unassigned IPv4 address space does not permit the assignment of addresses for administrative ease. Organizations considering the use of static IP address assignment are expected to investigate and implement dynamic assignment technologies whenever possible. This means that you should use renumbering technology as much as possible, so that when you can justify a /19 you can get one, until then, find an ISP that is multi-homes and can provide you the IP addresses you need, and consider two connections to them, giving you the benefit of being multi-homed without the cost of the routers needed for full BGP, or needing to justify a /19. In message <3.0.1.32.19970608221802.00a56078@texoma.net>, Larry Vaden writes:
At 09:39 PM 6/8/97 -0500, Jeremy Porter wrote:
And besides, if it weren't for US governement interference, ARIN would already be up and running, and the members could find solutions for this problem. But regardless, the allocation group does not controll the policies of the individual companies, and therefore, if you insist on causing grief for the rest of us, your best bet to to file Anti-trust actions against carriers, like Sprint, Digex, and others that are filtering. (hint, good luck, you will need it.)
I have no intent of causing anyone grief, but rather wish to learn from the NANOG members (save any dogmas) and compete on a level playing field.
Our only legal actions have been defensive in nature. Number 1 was against telcos red-lining PRI service to rural Texas. Number 2 regarded an email privacy/ECPA issue raised by the Texas Attorney General through the use of an improperly issued subpoena. We had good luck in both, thank you [8-))
The input of those from NANOG is very valuable, IMHO. I'm looking for the thoughts of NANOG members, not to convince them of anything. Please excuse my thoughts that the NANOG members may have more experience with these issues and that we and other small ISPs can benefit from NANOG input.
In fact, the real question we posed at NANOG 10 is:
What can be done to properly operate a network with diversity and redundancy without the use of scarce resources, presuming the downside of them not being granted?
Regards,
Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. <http://www.texoma.net> direct 903-870-0365 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland fax 903-868-8551 Member ISP/C, TISPA and USIPA pager 903-867-6571
--- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net