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.
