Multi-homing was not a requirement. It was an alternate justification. I can't honestly meet the 50% utilization requirement for a /24, but under the pre-September rules I qualified for a /24 under 4.3.2.2 because I contract with multiple carriers and want to participate in BGP for failover.
Now that the language in 4.3.2.2 is gone, my reading is I have to either: a) Lie about my utilization. Not willing to do that. b) Beg for a BGP-transferrable block from a carrier, and even then, deal with the fact that other ISPs are far more likely to aggregate and filter specific routes to large carrier-assigned blocks. I end up with a less reliable failover solution. The policy revision is a significant step backward for me. Maybe I'm enough of an edge case to not matter. But ARIN-2014-13 stated 4.3.2.2 was redundant given the lowered minimum allocation in 4.3.2.1. It was not redundant. It covered a case that I think matters. The worst part is, I'm probably going to end up with two non-BGP transferrable /24s from two carriers (we all know they hand them out like candy with big circuits), so I'll end up burning more IPV4 space than I otherwise would. Steve King ICON Aircraft From: John Von Stein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:18 PM To: Richard J. Letts; Steve King; [email protected] Subject: RE: Multi-homing justification removed? 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 [cid:sigimg0@791f5d9d52446f85c6fed00adec61823] 102 NE 2nd Street Suite 136 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Office: 561-288-6989 www.QxCcommunications.com<http://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]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard J. Letts Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:24 PM To: Steve King; [email protected]<mailto:[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]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve King Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:47 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[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.
