[142306] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Address Assignment Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Bellovin)
Mon Jun 20 21:56:24 2011
From: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20110620215227.2594.qmail@joyce.lan>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:55:22 -0400
To: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 20, 2011, at 5:52 27PM, John Levine wrote:
>> 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.
>
> No legitimate mailer needs more than one /64 per physical network.
> Same reason.
>
Note that the OP spoke of assigning them one /64, rather than one per
physical net. I also note that ARIN, at least, suggests "/56 for small
sites, those expected to need only a few subnets over the next 5 years",
which would seem to include this site even without their justification.
All they need -- or, I suspect, need to assert -- is to have
multiple physical networks. They can claim a production net, a DMZ,
a management net, a back-end net for their databases, a developer
net, and no one would question an architecture like that....
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
