[arin-ppml] Initial ISP Allocation Policy
bill at herrin.us
Mon Jul 22 17:23:52 EDT 2013
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Randy Carpenter <rcarpen at network1.net> wrote:
>> More, nearly all rural ISPs can contract a private point to point line
>> to the nearest city with a carrier-neutral data center and pick up
>> another ISP there.
> Not for anything even close to reasonable cost. We're talking 100+ miles of fiber that would have to be newly installed.
At the customer counts you're talking about (more than a /22, less
than a /20) you can keep email and web running with a handful of T1s.
Or splurge on a T3. Neither requires construction of 100 miles of new
fiber. It isn't N+1 but it's a meaningful reliability enhancement for
the most critical services and it qualifies you as multihomed from
>> What you mean is that they can't get a second upstream at a price
>> that's viable for their customer base.
> Of course that is what I mean. If the companies I am talking about
> had billions of dollars, then there would not be an issue. But, they
> would also no longer be the companies I am talking about.
Thousands. N+1 costs more but let's keep our eyes on the ball. To be
multihomed you need thousands of dollars. Even way out in the boonies.
>> At any rate, if Daniel ties the two proposals together, I'd bet he'll
>> sink them both. Since the disucssion seems to focus on unifying
>> registrant classes rather than reducing minimum allocations, I'd
>> recommend he split the latter out.
> I agree that separate proposals may be better.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the ARIN-PPML