Re: address fragmentation

[Brandon Butterworth via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

On 03/07/2025 11:04:50, "Lu Heng" <h.lu () anytimechinese com> wrote:
> The difference is control.
>
> If you lease to a different network, or give an IP to a server you rented to a customer, yes, in both cases you will 
> have customer consensus to renumber them, but since leasing at minimum /24, but most hosting customer are in single IP, 
> the difficulty and challenge are quite different.

I don't see a difference, if I assign a customer a block of
any size it is going to be very hard to have them renumber,
probably equally hard if they lease it as the problems
for them are exactly the same.

A leaser probably has it easier as there would be a specific term
to the lease which they can let lapse if they won't agree to
a change. The lease would contain any terms necessary for in
term changes, if it doesn't then the only option is wait until
the term end.

> The discussion I like to see if there will be an best operation practice in assigning those IPs to avoid fragmentation 
> in the long run.

It used to be that if you had a customer expected to take incremental
chunks of space you'd sparsely assign so that you could grow their
assignment in the adjacent free space. There is no longer the luxury
of abundant space to do that unless you hoarded lots or use IPv6.

Without a method to dynamically re assign space to defragment
(flashbacks to running norton utilities) I don't see a way to
avoid fragmentation.

brandon

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/4L7MC52HCTHCALKNVXQ34DELN4QRADF6/