small multihomed organizations

vipar at vipar at
Mon Aug 6 17:05:47 EDT 2001

> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:42:59 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Lee Howard <lhoward at UU.NET>
> To: ppml at
> Subject: small multihomed organizations
> We occasionally have customers who will be multihomed with us and another
> provider, and who need address space, but can't justify a /24 based on
> usage and host count.  If we give them less than a /24, no traffic will 
> come down their other line. [1]
> 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?
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.

-lyric apted

> Thanks,
> Lee Howard
> [1] Here's why:  Most ISPs do not accept prefixes longer than 24 bits, so 
> they will ignore our propagation of our customer's /24, and they will 
> ignore the route announced from the customer's other ISP.  Since we also
> announce a large aggregate (say, a /13 from which that /24 was allocated)
> those peers will send traffic to us, which we can then forward to our
> customer.  But they'll never hear the other ISP's announcement, unless our
> network was completely cleared off the map and the aggregate were withdrawn.

lyric apted							
ip engineering manager, vipar
vipar at							

verio, inc.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list