NAIPR Message


>From:  Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael at MEMRA.COM]
>Sent:  Thursday, February 06, 1997 10:05 AM
>On Thu, 6 Feb 1997 Valdis.Kletnieks at VT.EDU wrote:
>> Now - try to get to 15K subscribers *without* multihoming.  Remember
>> that if you're only single-homed, you're right off the bat less
>> reliable than a multi-homed (the whole point is redundancy).  This
>> will cost you market share.
>You don't need to multihome to get redundancy. You can achieve the same
>reliability by using multiple links to an upstream provider that does
>multihoming. There are several providers already that supply this service
>to ISP's like TLG, IXA, Netaxs and so on.

Now now Michael, you are sounding like a Sprintlink rep.  Having multiple 
connections to the same upstream provider does *not* provide the same level 
of redundancy as connections to multiple upstream providers, especially if 
you are talking about multiple connections to the same provider in the same 
geographic area (which would no doubt be the case for a new ISP).  There 
are too many examples of provider specific router problems, congestion, and 
power outages taking down a whole area (remember the Stanford facility 
problem?) for the two solutions to be considered equivalent.

>It really isn't ARIN's job to be an all-purpose business consultant for
>ISP's supplying creativity services, marketing and planning advice,
>purchasing assistance, etc. All ARIN has to do is to apply the same
>international policies that RIPE and APNIC are applying and
>do it well.

On that we agree.

<joining David Conrad on his soapbox>

In fact this whole discussion of allocation policies is inappropriate on 
the ARIN list.  Policy issues are within the scope of PAGAN, and they apply 
to more than ARIN.  ARIN will be following the same allocation guidelines 
InterNIC has used (similar but not identical to RIPE and APNIC), which are 
documented and in use.
Jim Browning