[arin-ppml] Justifying an ISP /22

Otis L. Surratt, Jr. otis at ocosa.com
Wed Apr 17 18:49:08 EDT 2013

Reply inline

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Carpenter [mailto:rcarpen at network1.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:12 PM
To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Justifying an ISP /22

----- Original Message -----
> Jumping on ppml late..
> Randy,
> >1. Be an ISP with *any* amount of space from an upstream
> I'm not so sure this would be advisable? Wouldn't it be better to have 
> at least a /24?  Or is this what you had in mind?

>A /24 would not be too much of a hurdle, so that would be fine. Most of the frustrating examples I have seen are small ISPs that have a /22 or a /21, but are not multi-homed. They are expanding to the point >of needing more space, e.g. they have a /21, but need a /20. They don't already have a /20, so they can't get the /20. The upstream ISP will not issue them any more space. I have seen this on several >occasions.

I've seen this as well. In particular, was involving moving from /20 range to /19.
That seems to be the case with many of the stories I hear.

>Some have chosen to get multi-homed, but for some, multi-homing (at least to different upstreams) is not possible.

This is always a tough one. Because it costs money to bring in a separate pipe. But one could simple fix this by colocating gear in a neutral carrier data center and speaking BGP. By use of PTP or tunnels to get it back to your POP. But that defeats the point of redundancy but it achieves multi-homing to satisfy policy. But couldn't those ISPs with those issues simply explain their situation and I'm sure ARIN could work with them?

>Looking at the NRPM more closely, I think it would be pretty a simple to have a policy change that simply reduced the amount of PA space required for a single-homed ISP to /24, but also require justification >for a full /22. Basically, even the playing field for single-home and multi-home, since there is now a situation where ARIN has available address space, but upstream ISPs seem not to have (or unwilling to >provide).

But couldn't you just adjust the language to account for dual-homing to the single ISP?
The /24 PA would help out.

>The one situation that is still left hanging by this is a brand new ISP, which can not get any PI space at all, since they have no upstream space yet. It may be as hard for them to get new PA space as it is >existing ISPs to get additional PA space.

This can be a tough one... But it could be fixed by having the applicant submit copies of contract with an ISP(s) and their request for PA. This is the same approach that is done for ASNs I believe if you are not yet multihomed.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list