TOPIC: IP Addresses from our Providers

So we have several ISP and other providers we deal with, and each of them seems to have a different idea of how to assign us IP addresses.

One provider gives us a /30 for every connection we get, even if we need more IP addresses we get a /30 and then another /28 or whatever that client needs.

Another provider gives us only one block... if we need a few addresses a /29 more a /28 or whatever. But we are always burn ip's in that network for the connection.

Is there any standardization to this? Anyone care to venture why either way is best?


thx.
T

Because they are expecting you to NAT your traffic. You don't have any routers that will run BGP and they are your egress to the internet. Why would you want any public IPs anyway?

One block for all is more attractive from the organizational point of view. However, it might cost you more if the block is much larger than what you actually need (I'm sure you know better than me about that). However, there is nothing wrong with having more separate /30 /29 blocks. But if the small blocks were non contiguous, the ISP's routers might just have longer routing tables, which is not very efficient.

Any way, You can do almost any thing with a single /30 public IP. except for having two or more public servers opening the same public port (say 2 web servers for example both on port 80 open for outside)

Thats as far as I know.

One provider gives us a /30 for every connection we get, even if we need more IP addresses we get a /30 and then another /28 or whatever that client needs.

Another provider gives us only one block... if we need a few addresses a /29 more a /28 or whatever. But we are always burn ip's in that network for the connection.

I think the latter would be a better option because design wise, you would need 1 public IP on your WAN side & then a few more for your DMZ (Servers & internal devices that need public IP.

Having only one subnet would mean you can use them either on the WAN side or DMZ.