[144728] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Sep 17 14:32:31 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <462737ff-25e5-4846-9ac5-061cf580824b@zimbra.network1.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 11:27:56 -0700
To: Randy Carpenter <rcarpen@network1.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 17, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
>> All of the speculation and comment on this thread has been something
>> to watch, but, it's not actually all that accurate.
>>=20
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four2
>>=20
>> NRPM 4.2 provides several ways in which an ISP can qualify for space
>>=20
>> As has been mentioned in this thread, efficiently using a PA
>> allocation
>> from an upstream provider is one such mechanism. (4.2.2.1, 4.2.2.2).
>>=20
>> However, if you can show an immediate need for a /22 or more within
>> the next 30 days (not particularly hard if you are building an ISP),
>> you
>> can qualify under 4.2.1.6 without any prior utilization.
>>=20
>> I know of a number of ISPs that have obtained their initial
>> allocations in
>> this manner.
>>=20
>> Owen
>=20
> I have a small ISP customer who is not multi-homed, and is using about =
a /21 and a half of space, and is expanding. Their upstream is refusing =
to give them more space, so they wanted to get their own, and give back =
the space to the upstream, with the possible exception of a small block =
for their servers, which would be very difficult to renumber. We =
explained this all, and the response we got from ARIN was that we needed =
to have a full /20 from the upstream, at which time we could easily get =
a /20 of new space. In order to qualify for the immediate need, we would =
need to show need for the entire /20, of which we would need to fully =
utilize (renumber into) within 30 days. That is not even remotely =
possible.
>=20
Or, they could easily multihome and qualify at a much smaller threshold.
> The problem with this whole thing is that I have no less than 4 ISPs =
that are in almost the same boat.
Then propose a policy change to rectify it.
Owen
