[arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Thu Nov 20 12:27:34 EST 2014

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 2:17 AM, Adam Thompson <athompso at athompso.net> wrote:
> Because the lack of multi-homing as a justification makes every IP address
> user a captive of their initial carrier. Do *you* know anyone who will
> renumber (short of going out of business altogether)?

Uh, I'm not sure you understand. Or perhaps I misundertsand. I'm
saying that you _should not have to be multihomed to receive
resources. The requirement could be two _locations_, not two upstream
providers. Or better yet, leave in the multi homing requirement but
also allow for multiple locations homed to the network. Theoretically,
that interpretation is probably valid under the current "policy"
regime. But strict interpretation might believe otherwise.

The Internet is getting so big these days that the infrastructure that
many of us have _does not_ require multihoming each location in a
metro, it only requires multiple locations.

I may also be missing the point with respect to small providers who
are likely to have a single location or a topology that doesn't lend
itself to the "cloud" approach. Still, in the age of exhaustion the
building case against needs testing "should" also remove multi-homing
as a requirement to acquire your own address block so that you do not
have to constantly renumber or be captive.



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list