small multihomed organizations

[David R Huberman]

Lee Howard wrote:
> ARIN's current policy, as I understand it, is that multihoming is not
> justification for a /24.  I would like to hear recommendations and best
> practices from others for how to address the customer (pun intended)
> without violating ARIN policy.  Should ARIN accept multihoming as
> justification for a /24?

Lyric Apted responded:
> like you, I think most of us have an unofficial policy that runs against
> ARIN's for the reasons you've mentioned - personally I believe that
> multihoming should be justification for a /24.  in reality it is already.

I'll chime in with a quick nod to Lyric's comment. More and more I am
seeing bona fide engineering plans that require organizations to break
from following ARIN's address usage policies. When we, as operators, deem
customer and/or internal engineering goals as legitimate, it behooves us
to support these efforts despite traditional policy.

Interestingly, Bill Woodcock at RIPE-39 brought up the issue of "trust"
between an RIR and its membership. To me, this is a classic example where
the operator must be entrusted by the RIR to balance mutually exclusive
goals.

/david