Comments on Routing and Allocation Policy Wanted
I'm currently in the process of working on a "rough draft" of a policy on IP number usage. I'd like to solicit a few comments from those of you who seem to be making the majority of the routing decisions. Here's a copy of what I'm presently working on. Please feel free to rip it to shreds if necessary.... THE MONTANA INTERNET COOPERATIVE INTERNET ADDRESS ASSIGNMENT AND ROUTING POLICY September 29, 1995 Standard Dialup SLIP, CSLIP and PPP customers will be allocated a Single Static IP Address to be used to configure their software. There are many advantages to be gained by Statically allocating the numbers, including the ability to have multiple mailboxes by using SMTP, etc. Dedicated and Routed-Dialup customers will be allocated a block of numbers from MIC's CIDR block. The size and quantity of blocks will depend on the number of machines to be connected to the network at the customer's premises and the customer's network architecture. MIC currently allocates blocks containing 8, 16, 32, 64 or 256 "individual" addresses. Multiple consecutive blocks will be allocated depending on need of the customer. Dedicated and Routed-Dialup customers who already have a set of Internic allocated addresses may continue to use those numbers as long as the following conditions are met: 1) The numbers MUST be listed and registered in the internic database. 2) Only blocks addressable with a prefix of /21 or smaller for addresses with an initial octet less than 205, and blocks addressable with a prefix of /19 or smaller for addresses with an initial octet of 205 or higher will be permitted. If you are uncertain whether certain addresses meet these criteria, contact MIC support for details. 3) The customer is aware that MIC will not guarantee the routablity of any customer provided numbers. The customer should also be aware that routing policies can and will change, and as a result, the customer's numbers may not be routed by various Service Providers at any point in the future. forrestc@imach.com
Somehow I'm under the impression that it's possible to have SMTP over a PPP dialup by logging into the mail server, is that not correct? Assigning an IP address on the fly gives better utilization of the space if you can get the functionality you need. -- Walt
There are several reasons that we are doing the static allocation for the SLIP/PPP accounts: 1) Dynamic addressing for SLIP can cause grief, especially for users who can't seem to figure out a script. 2) The sendmail issue: Packages such as Chameleon listen on Port 25 for inbound SMTP connections while they're up. They won't handle some of the enhancements to pop and other protocols. 3) Process cleanup for news. Inn seems to leave hung nnrpd processes hanging around. Once an hour we try to ping each PPP user which has a nnrpd process running, and if we don't get an answer after 5 tries, we kill the process. 4) The population in the state is 1,000,000. We're in an area with about 15,000 in the local calling area. I don't see us going over 2-300 PPP users in the next year at any given location. and the list could go on and on and on. On Sat, 30 Sep 1995, Walter O. Haas wrote:
forrestc@imach.com writes
How about a pool of dynamic addresses for most folks and static for only those who have a _real_ need for such a thing. That way you don't tie up a lot of addresses for occasional and casual users who have no _real_ need for static addresses. Ease of configuration of software should not be a reason for static addresses. Brian D. Brian Kimmel Kimbro, Inc. Voice: (206) 937-8381 Seattle, WA USA http://www.kimbro.com briank@kimbro.com Washington Internet Provider List http://www.kimbro.com/providers.html
I've gotten a rash of responses about the Static allocation of IP addresses to our SLIP/PPP customers. I'll look into that, however, I can't see much real gain for our situation, in that we probably will never exceed 2 class C's for our Static SLIP/PPP users. What I'd really like to hear is some critisisms about the prefixes in a later section of the document. Just so you have some background on this, we are going to be renumbering the following blocks into a single /18, dependent on the approval of the Internic. 2 blocks of /19 1 block of /20 1 block of /23 5 customer (I.E. internic allocated to customer) blocks of /24 and 1 customer block of /24, not yet routed. (These blocks will be returned to the issuing NIC after the renumber) Some people actually chastised me for not conserving number space with the SLIP/PPP issue, and being concerned for my own good instead of the good of the net. I'd really like to hear some opinions on whether the prefixes listed in one of the lower sections are reasonable to assume that they might be routed on the net, so we don't have to force our users to renumber yet again. As we reallocate blocks to customers, we are going to be auditing each customer's network use and plan and only allocate the size of subnets needed for the customer. Considering we have equipment that only handles RIP V1, this could prove to be interesting. SO, I'd ask that you take a look at the ENTIRETY of the original posting and ignore the Static SLIP/CSLIP/PPP section, and let me know what you think of the REST of the document. Thanks, forrestc@imach.com On Sat, 30 Sep 1995, D. Brian Kimmel wrote:
participants (3)
-
D. Brian Kimmel -
Forrest W. Christian -
Walter O. Haas