SWIP netblocks

[ginny listman]

Mike,

If you were allocating 9 ip addresses, my recommendation would be to
allocate the smallest amount of cidr blocks, ie 1 /29 plus 1 /32.  This
would be far better that starting with .1 and winding up with 1 /32, 2 /31
and 1 /30.  I just want to limit the total number of cidr blocks per SWIP.
Although assigning 254 addresses, .1 through .254, conserves 2 addresses,
I'd rather save the room on a routing table and sacrifice the 2 addresses
and not allocate 16 cidr blocks.

Ginny

On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Gogulski, Mike wrote:

> Ginny,
> 
> I'd say "no", and provide one example to support my position.
> 
> Many ISPs are deploying DSL services using bridged networking models.
> Typically, the ISP allocates a large block (/24 or so) at a time to an
> integrated routing and bridging interface, and then assigns customer
> addresses from this block one at a time as customers come online.  If a
> customer requires more than one IP address, these can be assigned, and they
> do not have to be assigned on CIDR boundaries at all.
> 
> If the assignment is larger than a /29, ARIN policy requires that the
> reassignment be documented via SWIP or RWhois.  Implementing this policy
> would force an ISP who needed to assign a customer (for example) 9 IP
> addresses for a bridged DSL service 16 addresses instead, a net waste of 7
> addresses.  This would be in conflict with one of ARIN's other stated policy
> goals, namely the conservation of IPv4 address space.
> 
> Peace,
> Mike Gogulski
> Chief Engineer
> DSL.net, Inc.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ginny listman [mailto:ginny at arin.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 11:10 AM
> To: dbwg at arin.net
> Subject: SWIP netblocks
> 
> 
> In reviewing what is currently stored in the database, there are a number
> of SWIPed netblocks that are not on the bit boundary.  For example,
> instead of SWIPing 0 to 255, an entire /24, 1 to 254 was SWIPed.  In the
> future, we will be operating in a cidr world, including displaying cidr
> blocks in whois.  For a block that is 1 to 254, the display will include 2
> /32, 2 /31, 2 /30, 2 /29, 2 /28, 2 /27, and 2 /26.  It would be a whole
> lot cleaner to display 1 /24.
> 
> How do people feel about enforcing allocations/assignments based on a
> single cidr block?  I could see an occasion where someone may want to
> assign 2-4 cidr blocks at a single time, but can we enforce, or strongly
> encouraging, a policy like this?  SWIP on the bit boundary.
> 
> Ginny
>