[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-7: Rationalize Multi-Homing Definitionand Requirement

[Jim McBurnett]

Robert,
Can this policy we modified to also address end user sites?
I just saw another question on NANOG and it made me take a closer
look...
Thanks,
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert E.Seastrom [mailto:rs at seastrom.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 9:32 PM
To: Jim McBurnett
Cc: Member Services; ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-7: Rationalize Multi-Homing
Definitionand Requirement


"Jim McBurnett" <jim at tgasolutions.com> writes:

> Interesting...
> I called the helpdesk a little while back and asked for a multi-homing

> block for a customer that was about to dump their primary carrier and 
> become multi-homed and was denied.
>
> I was told the denial was because the customer was not currently 
> multi-homed and at face value could not justify a /22.
>
> So under this policy, I believe the customer would have been approved.

Well, you *do* still have to justify the /22.  :)

> With HIPPA, Sarbox, and the financial equivilent, our customers are 
> moving to multi-homing.
> Most want a /23 or /24, and from my experience I have seen 1 to 2 week

> delays in getting IP's from some ISPs.
> This may really help the SMB market that wants to multi-home.

Only if they can justify the minimum PI allocation (which is an
orthogonal problem to the one that 2005-7 attempts to address).

                                        ---Rob