[144743] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Carpenter)
Sat Sep 17 19:53:58 2011
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 19:52:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Carpenter <rcarpen@network1.net>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <92BC53CF-5B28-4001-9B34-E086D0CEA393@delong.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> > 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.
> >
>
> Or, they could easily multihome and qualify at a much smaller
> threshold.
Unfortunately, this is prohibitively expensive. They are small rural telcos who are connected to a collective state-wide fiber network. Any second provider would could an order of magnitude (or more) more than what they have, and would likely be delivered over the same fiber network anyway.
> > 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.
Noted, and planned :-)
-Randy
