Anyone want to debate why there is any multi homing requirement in 2014? Best,
-M< > On Nov 19, 2014, at 22:18, John Von Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > > Speaking from recent / current experience, the multi-homing requirement is a > bit of a challenge for tweener-sized organizations like QxC. We are too big > for underlying fiber carriers to comfortably continue to supply our need for > IP addresses but not in the position to carry the financial, technical or > operational challenges of multi-homing. This was a very significant cost > commitment for QxC and I can imagine this is not achievable for other > like-sized ISPs. Granted, we are better off for it now but had I known how > much of a financial and technical hurdle this really was then I probably > would not have done it. I just needed more IP addresses to continue to grow > my biz and would have much rather spent the money and manpower on > marketing/sales/customer acquisition. Multi-homing is a nice-to-have luxury > that none of my customers are willing to pay for so it is simply a cost of > entry to get the IP addresses we need to continue to grow our customer base. > > As such, I support dropping multi-homing as a prerequisite for an IP > allocation. > > Thank you, > John W. Von Stein > CEO > > <image001.jpg> > > 102 NE 2nd Street > Suite 136 > Boca Raton, FL 33432 > Office: 561-288-6989 > www.QxCcommunications.com > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Richard J. Letts > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:24 PM > To: Steve King; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed? > > I believe the intent was there. > > orgs that have a justifiable/provable need for a /24 were been restricted by > their current/lone provider being unwilling to give them enough address > space. Not everyone has the ability to change providers, and if you can’t > change providers then you certainly would not be able to multihome.. > > Richard Letts > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Steve King > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:47 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed? > > The changes implemented in ARIN-2014-13, specifically the removal of 4.3.2.2, > appear to have removed the multi-homing justification for a /24 for end > users. Previously, the need to multi-home, and proof of contracts with > multiple upstream providers, was sufficient to justify a /24 to participate > in BGP. > > For reassignments from ISPs, the language remains in 4.2.3.6. Users can > justify a /24 via a requirement to multi-home rather than utilization rate. > However this revision appears to leave utilization rate as the only criterion > for direct end-user assignments. > > Was this the intent or possibly an overlooked side effect of the change? > > > > > > Steve King > ICON Aircraft > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
