[arin-ppml] Rationale for /22

[Kevin Kargel]

> On 3 Aug 2009 Kevin Kargel wrote:
> 
> >
> > I believe we will see a mushrooming incidence of these small multi-homed
> > organizations in the routing tables in the coming years.
> >
> > This will affect the issue of global routing table size and does have a
> > bearing on reducing the minimum allocation unit.
> 
> This is exactly the situation that providing PI /24s could create
> the inducement for many more users to multihome that I was
> refering to and then create the tipping point Leo was refering
> to.
> 
> Thinking a little out side the box here and I'm not even sure
> something like this would be legal, it might be considered
> colluding.  What if a pair of providers or maybe even a set of
> providers were to jointly obtain a block of addresses to allow
> customers to multihome.  Customers would connect to two or
> more participating providers, announce there block to the
> providers and then the providers contain the customer
> announcements within there joint infrastructure and only
> announce the aggeraget to the Internet.
> 
> As I said I'm not sure how to set this up legaly and we would
> probablly need ARIN policy to enable it, as I beieve it would
> probablly violate one or two policies.

I think it is already enabled, just by virtue of the fact that there is
nothing that I know of in policy to proscribe it.  This would actually be an
operational/routing issue which is a pie ARIN has worked hard to keep it's
fingers out of.

What we may be witnessing is the advent of the multi-homed end user.

> 
> As I don't work for an ISP, I'm not sure this could work from a
> business model point of view either.  It would definitely take a
> set of ISP with an enlightened view of competition to make it
> work.

There are many many ISP's out there who are co-op telco's who would be happy
to fit this into their business model for their members.  These companies
are cooperatives, not corporations and do not operate under the same
business constraints as a corporation.  The co-ops are not afraid of custom
configurations.


> 
> Could something like this work?
> 
> I'm sure I'm missing one or two details.  But, at least Kevin's
> anecdote makes me think there could be a market for such a
> service.  And with this kind of a solution end-users could
> multihome down to a /28 or /29 without creating minutia in the
> global route table.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090803/228f162a/attachment.bin>