Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: Approach to allocating netblocks
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk () iname com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:27:02 -0600

I hesitate to put my customers in "the Lagrange point between clueless and lazy" because they're SMBs doing what 99% of 
the other SMBs out there do.  I have some customers who are in the hub in a multi-site VPN network and renumbering 
would be very painful.

While Renumbering has all the positives you mentioned, it's a sure way to sour the customer relationship.  Much 
cheaper, long-term, to set aside adjacent address space.


-----Original Message-----
From: Måns Nilsson [mailto:mansaxel () besserwisser org] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:17 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: RE: Approach to allocating netblocks

--On onsdag, onsdag 14 jan 2009 10.30.18 -0600 Frank Bulk
<frnkblk () iname com> wrote:

But perhaps the BCP is to make the customer renumber, in which case I'm
making things more complicated than they need to be.

Most customers with PA space (which is what you are giving them) are quite
used to renumbering. If not, they will become, given v6 PAishness. 

Renumbering is not to be avoided at all costs, because: 

Renumbering cleans cruft and finds mishaps waiting to happen.
Renumbering rewards those who have done proper configuration separation. 
Renumbering rewards those who have automated their systems management.  
Renumbering thus is good for you. 

There are economic incentives (keeping the customer because said customer
hovers in the Lagrange point between clueless and lazy) to let suboptimal
numbering schemes fester. Might alter picture above, but from operational
standpoint renumbering is not that bad. 

Måns Nilsson                    M A C H I N A

Now my EMOTIONAL RESOURCES are heavily committed to 23% of the SMELTING
and REFINING industry of the state of NEVADA!!

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]