Address Assignment Question

Jason Baugher jason at
Mon Jun 20 13:06:44 UTC 2011

On 6/20/2011 7:44 AM, Steve Richardson wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Jared Mauch<jared at>  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
Did everyone miss that the customer didn't request a /24, they requested 
a "/24s worth in even more dis-contiguous blocks". I can only think of 
one reason why a customer would specifically ask for that. They are 
concerned that they'll get blacklisted. They're hoping if they do, it 
will be a small block of many rather than one entire block.

When customers make strange requests without giving a good explanation, 
I have to assume they're up to something.


More information about the NANOG mailing list