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
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,
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 j...@qxccommunications.com wrote:
Speaking from recent / current experience, the multi-homing requirement is a
bit of a challenge for tweener-sized
Because the lack of multi-homing as a justification makes every IP address user
a captive of their initial carrier. Do *you* know anyone who will renumber
(short of going out of business altogether)?
I think this is an extremely bad idea, tantamount to ARIN selling out to
ILECs, but further
