corrected: Policy 2001-2, Multihoming is sufficient justification for /24 from provider (fwd)

[Einar Bohlin]

I wasn't going to keep pushing this, but I see
it as a little monkeywrench in a system full of
little monkeywrenches.

:> ARIN will provide an ASN to anyone who can document their intent to
> multihome, usually by showing contracts with providers, invoices f
or
> equipment, and network plans.
>

That seems a little much.  I though you had to have
minimum two connections (and give contacts for verification)
and list the net(s) that comprise the AS.  No net, no AS, no
need for an ASN makes sense to me.

> ISPs would end up having to do the same justification work as ARIN
 does to
> prove intent to multihome, which seems an unreasonable burden on t
he ISPs.
> If the customer already has the ASN in hand, the ISP can rely on A
RIN
> having already vetted the multihoming plan.

I'm not saying ISPs do anything more than ask,
"are you going to be multihomed?" and getting a yes
or no reply.  Just like today.

I'm for keeping the process simple.  To me, when the customer
says they are multihoming, that should be enough.  Then either
they have an ASN or they will be getting one.  Why should the
fact that they are getting one in the future stop me from
assigning the net now?  Because they might be trying
to get an unjustified /24?  That's ridiculous, there's
easier ways to do that.

Also, there is the value of one ASN vs one /24 to think about.
Today an ASN is more valuable than a /24, so why push 
customers to get an ASN they might not need?

Example, customer says, "yes, we're multihoming".
We assign a /24.  When we configure them
we ask for the ASN which we need for the config; if
they've changed their minds about multihoming, we 
revisit their IP need based on host count and adjust
as necessary.  Just like we do today.

We should not say that a customer has to go
get an ASN in order to get IPs.

Regards,

Einar Bohlin
IP Planning Analyst
WorldCom, Inc.
Phone: USA 703 886-7362
email: einar.bohlin at wcom.com



On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 03:56:07PM -0700, Barbara Roseman wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2001, Einar Bohlin wrote:
> 
> > The following requirement makes the policy unworkable
> > and should be replaced:
> >
> > "-Customer must cite their asn as justification for address space"
> >
> > There's a catch-22 here in that ARIN won't give
> > the customer an ASN until the customer has a net,
> > and the ISP won't be able to give the customer the /24
> > until the customer can show their ASN.  This
> > won't work.
> 
> ARIN will provide an ASN to anyone who can document their intent to
> multihome, usually by showing contracts with providers, invoices for
> equipment, and network plans.
> 
> >
> > It should be "-Customer cites intent to multihome as
> > justification for address space".  This lets ARIN
> > continue to do their job of registering AS numbers,
> > and allows ISPs to conduct business with their customers.
> >
> 
> ISPs would end up having to do the same justification work as ARIN does to
> prove intent to multihome, which seems an unreasonable burden on the ISPs.
> If the customer already has the ASN in hand, the ISP can rely on ARIN
> having already vetted the multihoming plan.
> 
> 
> > FYI I tried to see the original wording, but the
> > link on the ARIN main site is broken (LAST CALL:
> > Policy 2001-2... points to ASO election results).
> 
> >From the PPML archive:
> 
> http://www.arin.net/mailinglists/ppml/0321.html
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Einar Bohlin
> > IP Planning Analyst
> > WorldCom, Inc.
> > Phone: USA 703 886-7362
> > email: einar.bohlin at wcom.com
> >
>