[142230] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Address Assignment Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Richardson)
Mon Jun 20 08:45:09 2011
In-Reply-To: <71FE8C60-EB2E-4FE5-A8E0-8E602029F843@puck.nether.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:44:04 -0400
From: Steve Richardson <steverich.nanog@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Jared Mauch <jared@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
