RE: standards for giving out blocks of IP addresses
Of course bandwidth != subnet mask. He should give them whatever IP's they demonstrate a need for in the next three months. Determining and justifying that need has nothing to do with how over (or under) subscribed their bandwidth is.
Let us not forget what some salespersons will promise to potential large bandwidth customers. An OC-3 POS customer, for example, can expect many many /24s. One may say "They should go to ARIN", but alas, they would have to pay another $2500 on top of the $1 million+ they are paying for transit. <8{} It is surprising how much a salesperson will "sell" to get the commission on a 5 year OC-3 contract, forget about OC-12/48... So, in some cases, like it or not, bandwidth sold is proportional to IP addresses. chris
If they are in fact only selling dialup (not leased lines, not web hosting), you might ask how many pops(locations) they plan to have right away, modems/pop, space reserved for internal devices (email/corporate lan) and links. You could easially justify a couple of /24's with a couple locations and IP's for all the new PC's in the marketing dept.
KL
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 08:37:44PM -0400, Martin, Christian wrote:
Of course bandwidth != subnet mask. He should give them whatever IP's they demonstrate a need for in the next three months. Determining and justifying that need has nothing to do with how over (or under) subscribed their bandwidth is.
Let us not forget what some salespersons will promise to potential large bandwidth customers. An OC-3 POS customer, for example, can expect many many /24s. One may say "They should go to ARIN", but alas, they would have to pay another $2500 on top of the $1 million+ they are paying for transit. <8{}
ISPs should be following rfc 2050. It doesn't matter if they have a dedicated 56k or an OC-192. Customers can and should expect to have their space needs met as per their needs. These guidelines are not that draconian: Although topological issues may make exceptions necessary, the basic criteria that should be met to receive network numbers are listed below: 25% immediate utilization rate 50% utilization rate within 1 year The utilization rate above is to be used as a guideline, there may be be occasions when the 1 year rate does not fall exactly in this range. Organizations must exhibit a high confidence level in its 1 year utilization rate and supply documentation to justify the level of confidence. Austin
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Austin Schutz wrote:
ISPs should be following rfc 2050. It doesn't matter if they have a dedicated 56k or an OC-192. Customers can and should expect to have their space needs met as per their needs. These guidelines are not that draconian:
Although topological issues may make exceptions necessary, the basic criteria that should be met to receive network numbers are listed below:
25% immediate utilization rate 50% utilization rate within 1 year
IIRC, Sprint wanted us to show 80% utilization within 3 months(!), citing ARIN guidelines... James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up@3.am http://3.am =========================================================================
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 up@3.am wrote:
IIRC, Sprint wanted us to show 80% utilization within 3 months(!), citing ARIN guidelines...
James: That's for allocation to ISP's. The RFC refered to end user utilization of the address space (see http://www.arin.net/regserv/ip-assignment.html). I've seen some ISP's incorrectly quote the 80% utilization to customers and expect them to achieve that before assigning them more IP address space. Chuck
The 80% utilization rule makes sense for ADDITIONAL allocations, where an end user already has space but needs more. Of course, exceptions can be made for large deployments (customer has 150 hosts on a single /24, but needs two more for a 400-host data center, etc.) For initial allocations, the 50% rule makes the most sense, IMHO. -Chris On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 11:10:08AM -0400, Charles Scott wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 up@3.am wrote:
IIRC, Sprint wanted us to show 80% utilization within 3 months(!), citing ARIN guidelines...
James: That's for allocation to ISP's. The RFC refered to end user utilization of the address space (see http://www.arin.net/regserv/ip-assignment.html). I've seen some ISP's incorrectly quote the 80% utilization to customers and expect them to achieve that before assigning them more IP address space.
Chuck
-- --------------------------- Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
Please note that the RFC2050 reference to 25% and 50% is for end user address space, while the 80% refers the ISP's level of assignment of their allocated address space. I was refering to the confusion some ISP's exhibit in requesting %80 utilization by end users prior to additional assignments. Chuck
James: That's for allocation to ISP's. The RFC refered to end user utilization of the address space (see http://www.arin.net/regserv/ip-assignment.html). I've seen some ISP's incorrectly quote the 80% utilization to customers and expect them to achieve that before assigning them more IP address space.
Chuck
It's not really a question of what makes sense, it's what you need to do to keep ARIN happy. As an ISP, if you only apply the 25% / 50% rule to your customers, how are you supposed to demonstrate 80% utilization to ARIN when requesting any kind of allocation? If you've handed out a whole bunch of /24 - /29 subnets to your customers and they are compliant with RFC2050, this could well result in a situation where you've depleted nearly all of your address space, yet are nowhere near 80% utilization or your, say, /21 from your upstream. Is ARIN going to allocate you a /20? On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:
The 80% utilization rule makes sense for ADDITIONAL allocations, where an end user already has space but needs more. Of course, exceptions can be made for large deployments (customer has 150 hosts on a single /24, but needs two more for a 400-host data center, etc.)
For initial allocations, the 50% rule makes the most sense, IMHO.
-Chris
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 11:10:08AM -0400, Charles Scott wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 up@3.am wrote:
IIRC, Sprint wanted us to show 80% utilization within 3 months(!), citing ARIN guidelines...
James: That's for allocation to ISP's. The RFC refered to end user utilization of the address space (see http://www.arin.net/regserv/ip-assignment.html). I've seen some ISP's incorrectly quote the 80% utilization to customers and expect them to achieve that before assigning them more IP address space.
Chuck
-- --------------------------- Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com
PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up@3.am http://3.am =========================================================================
participants (5)
-
Austin Schutz -
Charles Scott -
Christopher A. Woodfield -
Martin, Christian -
up＠3.am