X-BOX Online Service GmbH
"Keyboard Error: Press F1 to continue!" ;-)
----- Original Message -----
From: Gabriel Sponsler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [NTISP] IP delegation...
| I am sorry I got your feathers ruffled. Perhaps the inquiry was a bit
| The reason that we have the constraint is because of the unusual
| circumstance with our upstream provider. They control the class B, and
| allocated us only two class C blocks as of now, so as you surely know
| subnet is appropriate for our circumstance.
| I was hoping for a resolution aside from subnetting our customers to
| meet their individual IP needs for a couple of reasons. 1) As you can tell
| from the above paragraph we are temporarily constrained by the quantity of
| IPs we can use. 2) Our sales team have sold odd amounts of IP to our
| customers, and once again I am trying to be efficient by not assigning a
| to someone who only needs 6 IP addresses.
| I am somewhat resigned to subnet to each customer accordingly, but
| again that's why I posted to the news group for alternative suggestions.
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: Bob's Lists <email@example.com>
| To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
| Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 11:19 AM
| Subject: RE: [NTISP] IP delegation...
| > Pardon my ignorance on this issue, but in starting to sell DSL our
| > has run into a problem delegating IP addresses to customers. Due to the
| > configuration constraints of the Cisco router (3810) we are using, we
| > assigned a subnet mask for our end users of 255.255.254.0 thus allowing
| > of the users access to all of the addresses in the assigned class C.
| > My question is: What would be the best way to avoid customers to just
| > unused IPs for their workstations? The only way I could do it now is
| > assign all the untaken IP to a Nt workstation, but that is cumbersome
| > quite annoying.
| > -----------------------
| > The only suggestion I can offer, is to get a network admin who knows
| > they're doing.
| > First of all, 255.255.254.0 is not a class C, it is 2 class C's (or 1
| > and they're now known). Using that mask, and if, indeed, your upstream
| > allocated you a class C, I'm surprised they haven't nailed you yet for
| > 'unusual traffic' on your link...
| > Next, you should be allocating customers only what they need. If they
| > address, give them a /30 (with the gateway on your router, leaving 1 IP
| > the customer end. Similarly for customers requiring more addresses,
| > them appropriately sized subnets.
| > What configuration restraints?
| > Whoever set it up being incapable is the only restraint I see here.
| > Regards
| > Bob
| > For more information about this list (including removal) go to:
| > http://www.iea-software.com/support/maillists/liststart
| For more information about this list (including removal) go to:
For more information about this list (including removal) go to: