[arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?

[Steve King]

Multi-homing was not a requirement.   It was an alternate justification.  I can't honestly meet the 50% utilization requirement for a /24, but under the pre-September rules I qualified for a /24 under 4.3.2.2 because I contract with multiple carriers and want to participate in BGP for failover.

Now that the language in 4.3.2.2 is gone, my reading is I have to either:


a)      Lie about my utilization.  Not willing to do that.

b)      Beg for a BGP-transferrable block from a carrier, and even then, deal with the fact that other ISPs are far more likely to aggregate and filter specific routes to large carrier-assigned blocks.  I end up with a less reliable failover solution.

The policy revision is a significant step backward for me.  Maybe I'm enough of an edge case to not matter.  But ARIN-2014-13 stated 4.3.2.2 was redundant given the lowered minimum allocation in 4.3.2.1.  It was not redundant.  It covered a case that I think matters.

The worst part is, I'm probably going to end up with two non-BGP transferrable /24s from two carriers (we all know they hand them out like candy with big circuits), so I'll end up burning more IPV4 space than I otherwise would.



Steve King
ICON Aircraft

From: John Von Stein [mailto:John at qxccommunications.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:18 PM
To: Richard J. Letts; Steve King; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: Multi-homing justification removed?

Speaking from recent / current experience, the multi-homing requirement is a bit of a challenge for tweener-sized organizations like QxC.  We are too big for underlying fiber carriers to comfortably continue to supply our need for IP addresses but not in the position to carry the financial, technical or operational challenges of multi-homing.  This was a very significant cost commitment for QxC and I can imagine this is not achievable for other like-sized ISPs.  Granted, we are better off for it now but had I known how much of a financial and technical hurdle this really was then I probably would not have done it.  I just needed more IP addresses to continue to grow my biz and would have much rather spent the money and manpower on marketing/sales/customer acquisition.  Multi-homing is a nice-to-have luxury that none of my customers are willing to pay for so it is simply a cost of entry to get the IP addresses we need to continue to grow our customer base.

As such, I support dropping multi-homing as a prerequisite for an IP allocation.

Thank you,
John W. Von Stein
CEO

[cid:sigimg0 at 791f5d9d52446f85c6fed00adec61823]

102 NE 2nd Street
Suite 136
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Office: 561-288-6989
www.QxCcommunications.com<http://www.qxccommunications.com/>

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Richard J. Letts
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:24 PM
To: Steve King; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?

I believe the intent was there.

orgs that have a justifiable/provable need for a /24 were been restricted by their current/lone provider being unwilling to give them enough address space. Not everyone has the ability to change providers, and if you can't change providers then you certainly would not be able to multihome..

Richard Letts

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steve King
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:47 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?

The changes implemented in ARIN-2014-13, specifically the removal of 4.3.2.2, appear to have removed the multi-homing justification for a /24 for end users.  Previously, the need to multi-home, and proof of contracts with multiple upstream providers, was sufficient to justify a /24 to participate in BGP.

For reassignments from ISPs, the language remains in 4.2.3.6.  Users can justify a /24 via a requirement to multi-home rather than utilization rate.  However this revision appears to leave utilization rate as the only criterion for direct end-user assignments.

Was this the intent or possibly an overlooked side effect of the change?



Steve King
ICON Aircraft

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141120/232979b5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2999 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141120/232979b5/attachment.jpg>