Help: HOWTO buy IP address blocks from ARIN?

[John Abreau]

Sure, using IPv6 for the vpn's address pool would be even better, if the
vpn software supports it.

The multiple vpn servers on RFC1918 blocks would be an interim Plan B if
using IPv6 were not feasible for some reason. A sysadmin team's lack of
knowledge and experience with IPv6 might be such a reason, if the vpn
solution needs to be rolled out in the immediate future.



On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Mark Komarinski <mkomarinski at wayga.org>
wrote:

> IPv6?
>
> On January 13, 2015 1:29:04 PM EST, Joshua Judson Rosen <
> rozzin at hackerposse.com> wrote:
>
>> On January 9, 2015 5:56:43 PM EST, John Abreau wrote:
>> >
>> >What are your project's needs that explicitly require 4K distinct
>> >public
>> >addresses and that cannot function using private addresses and NAT
>> >instead?
>>
>> 'Project' is a geographically-distributed tech company with a bunch of
>> frequently-mobile sub-networks where at least one end of any given
>> 'internal' connection actually needs to be going out from behind someone
>> else's network.
>>
>> There's certainly a chance that, say, our VPN or LAN addresses won't
>> conflict with any of the arbitrarily-addressed host networks where the VPN
>> endpoints reside, but we'd really rather have a routing scheme that 'will
>> work' as opposed to something that 'might work'.
>>
>> 1k addresses go to a main-office LAN; the rest of them basically go to
>> site offices. All of these things have the aforementioned routing
>> constraints.
>>
>> "Just buy a block of IP addresses that are actually guaranteed routable"
>> is the solution that I've seen in place at all of my former companies,
>> though I've never been the one to make it happen before.
>>
>> How would you do it?
>>
>> >On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Lloyd Kvam <python at venix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 17:26 -0500, Joshua Judson Rosen wrote:
>> >> > Anyone here ever been through the process of procuring an IP block
>> >> > from ARIN?
>> >>
>> >> Actually from my upstream ISP (UUNET) many years ago. I was
>> >requesting
>> >> a /21. The requirements were essentially the same back then.
>> >>
>> >> You're requesting 4K addresses. They want to know that 1K will be
>> >used
>> >> right now and that at least 2K will be in use within a year. If the
>> >> only way you can use up that number of addresses is by allocating one
>> >> thousand /30's they will turn you down. They are basically looking
>> >for
>> >> individual addresses, but you can count the lost addresses from your
>> >> subnet scheme.
>> >>
>> >> > I'm trying to interpret the requirements they give for an
>> >> > "end-user initial assignment", which are:
>> >> >
>> >> > * provide data demonstrating at least a 25% utilization rate of
>> >the
>> >> > requested block immediately upon assignment
>> >> >
>> >> > * provide data demonstrating at least a 50% utilization rate of
>> >the
>> >> > requested block within one year
>> >> >
>> >> > .. and maybe I'm just being dense, but it's not entirely obvious to
>> >me
>> >> > what "utilization rate" actually means here: do they mean
>> >"sub-blocks
>> >> > allocated to specific subnets with some-definition-of-minimal
>> >waste",
>> >> > or do they mean "individual addresses actually, specifically
>> >assigned"?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm trying to rationalise a /20 block, because I can't seem to
>> >> > partition the space such that I end up with < 50% allocated
>> >immediately
>> >> > or < 75% allocated over the next year; but if I count up the actual
>> >> > nodes that I expect to exist on all of my subnets, those counts are
>> >> > definitely short of both the `25% utilization immediately' and
>> >> > `50% utilization within one year' figures.
>> >> >
>> >> > If I'm really supposed to be counting individual addresses
>> >> > and not summing subnet sizes, what am I likely to be doing wrong
>> >here?
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> gnhlug-discuss mailing list
>> gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
>> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
>>
>>


-- 
John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix
Email jabr at blu.org / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0x920063C6
PGP-Key-Fingerprint A5AD 6BE1 FEFE 8E4F 5C23  C2D0 E885 E17C 9200 63C6
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20150113/73c5dfb0/attachment-0001.html