[arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Thu Nov 20 00:20:33 EST 2014

Anyone want to debate why there is any multi homing requirement in 2014? 



> On Nov 19, 2014, at 22:18, John Von Stein <John at qxccommunications.com> wrote:
> 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
> <image001.jpg>
> 102 NE 2nd Street
> Suite 136
> Boca Raton, FL 33432
> Office: 561-288-6989
> 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] 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] 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, 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  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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141119/a4923025/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list