[arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?

Thu Nov 20 12:42:35 EST 2014

Steve,

I think your interpretation of 4.3.2.2 is incorrect.  That policy section
was not the one that authorized the receipt of a (PA) /24 for multihoming.
That was, and still is, 4.2.3.6:
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236, which states that "The ISP
will then verify the customer's multihoming requirement and may assign the
customer a /24, based on this policy."

4.3.2.2 states that the minimum allocation size (from ARIN) for multihomed
end users was a /24.  However, that did not allow you to get a /24 from
ARIN just by becoming multihomed. If you were/are in that situation, you
always had to (and still have to) get your /24 from your upstream if you
don't meet ARIN's /24 utilizatinon criteria, and demonstrate efficient
utilization before getting one from ARIN.

If my understanding does not match how policy was implemented by staff
prior to implementation of ARIN-2014-13 on 17 September 2014, someone
please correct me, but that was the intent of the policy as I understand it.

When discussing 2014-13, my sense of the community was that we did not want
to authorize receipt of a /24 from ARIN solely based on multihoming,
because that could possibly open up a land rush of organizations spun up
solely for the purpose of getting a /24 from the free pool, holding it for
the requisite time, and then selling it on the transfer market.  I
personally would be more amenable to considering a policy change to
liberalize the requirements for getting a /24 if/when they're available
from the transfer market only.

-Scott

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Steve King <steve.king at iconaircraft.com>
wrote:

>  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
>
>
>
> [image: 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
> <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
> *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
> <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
> *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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141120/32736d22/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2999 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20141120/32736d22/attachment.jpg>