Our company is going through a merger and I'm tasked with coming up with a plan for IPAM moving forward.
Our companies have very different styles when it comes to IPAM.
Company A uses folders to group regions and offices, etc. This would make sense if you know you want to view IPs in a particular office, or making assignments to a particular region or office. However, it makes a mess out of seeing subnets that are available and can be used - or finding a subnet quickly.
Company B uses the tree view for IP Addressing much like a spreadsheet would. List out all /16s under 10.0.0.0 as supernets. Now you have an easy view of what is available, what is next, etc. Under each /16, we break down all supernets to /24s - again, giving us a full view of the networks used and available, much like a spreadsheet. However, we don't create all the IPs and don't scan the networks unless actually assigned.
Both systems have merit, both have decent logic.
But I think the IPAM system itself is designed wrong. It's too limiting.
In NPM, I'm able to edit my home page in a bazillion different ways. I create a custom view, have boxes for each datacenter, then group my items by vendor, and status, etc. But in THIS box on the right, I have all Riverbed devices. And under THAT, I have all the devices pertaining to security based on an SNMP string, etc.
My point is, we should treat Subnets and Supernets the same way. These should be objects that I can query on for the home screen in the exact same way I do with NPM - so that each user can have a completely customized view. The data is the same, why do I need to be locked in to one way of doing things? Make IPAM treat the subnets and supernets as objects to allow me to say "group by Office" in this box, and "Sort by IP Address" in this box. This gives me Company A and Company B methods on the same screen.
People have different ways of working with this data. Let each user work with it individually like you do with Netmon.