<div dir="ltr">Steve,<div><br></div><div>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, <a href="http://4.2.3.6">4.2.3.6</a>:</div><div><a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236">https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236</a>, which states that "The ISP will then verify the customer's multihoming requirement and may assign the customer a /24, based on this policy."<br></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>-Scott</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Steve King <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steve.king@iconaircraft.com" target="_blank">steve.king@iconaircraft.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Now that the language in 4.3.2.2 is gone, my reading is I have to either:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span style="color:#1f497d"><span>a)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#1f497d">Lie about my utilization. Not willing to do that.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span style="color:#1f497d"><span>b)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="color:#1f497d">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:black"> </span></u><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Steve King<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">ICON Aircraft</span><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> John Von Stein [mailto:<a href="mailto:John@qxccommunications.com" target="_blank">John@qxccommunications.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:18 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Richard J. Letts; Steve King; <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target="_blank">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Multi-homing justification removed?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">As such, I support dropping multi-homing as a prerequisite for an IP allocation.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Thank you,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">John W. Von Stein<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">CEO<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"><img width="122" height="78" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D004A2.57826200" alt="cid:sigimg0@791f5d9d52446f85c6fed00adec61823"></span><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="color:#1f497d">102 NE 2<sup>nd</sup> Street<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="color:#1f497d">Suite 136<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Boca Raton, FL 33432<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">Office: <a href="tel:561-288-6989" value="+15612886989" target="_blank">561-288-6989</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.qxccommunications.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue">www.QxCcommunications.com</span></a><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">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.</span><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">
</span><a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> [</span><a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard J. Letts<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:24 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Steve King; </span><a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">arin-ppml@arin.net</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">I believe the intent was there.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d">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..<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;line-height:12.0pt"><b><span style="color:#111111">Richard Letts</span></b><span style="font-size:7.5pt;color:gray"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net" target="_blank">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a> [<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net" target="_blank">mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve King<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:47 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target="_blank">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Was this the intent or possibly an overlooked side effect of the change?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:black"> </span></u><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Steve King<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">ICON Aircraft</span><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br></blockquote></div><br></div>