[144762] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Bulk)
Sun Sep 18 18:12:59 2011
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: "'Charles N Wyble'" <charles@knownelement.com>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <4E758877.5070002@knownelement.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:12:05 -0500
Reply-To: frnkblk@iname.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Where I live in rural America, I would not be surprised that someone who =
wanted to start an ISP might only be able to cost-justify one upstream. =
When one Internet T-1 is $1,200/month, getting a second T-1 for that =
price from another provider just to get an AS or PI is definitely =
cost-prohibitive and may go against their business plan. =20
Our own company has just one upstream provider (from geographically =
diverse POPs), our state's telecom coop, and to multi-home solely to =
meet ARIN's policy doesn't make sense. Fortunately we were using enough =
address space to meet the /20 requirement. =20
Charles, if you wrote a policy that allowed smaller ISPs to obtain a PI =
without the multihoming requirement if they demonstrated that =
multihoming was burdensome, I would support it at arin-ppml.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles N Wyble [mailto:charles@knownelement.com]=20
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:58 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on =
building a nationwide network
On 09/17/2011 06:52 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>>> 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.
Um.... really? You can't find anyone out there who would give you an
LOA? No friendly ISP? I'm getting LOA from a buddy of mine that
administers a couple existing ISP networks. It's not that difficult in
my opinion. I mean does it have to be a wireline upstream provider? Or
can it just be any AS who is friendly? I guess it's different for me as
this is a green field deployment and I expect to peer all over the
United States at dozens of POPS. As opposed to being a more traditional
access network provider in a particular geographic region.
> =20
>>> 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 :-)
I look forward to those discussions. I'm kind of intrigued by policy
now, after starting this process. At first I was a bit irritated but now
after John/Owen posted links and comments, it's a walk in the park. Just
waiting on an LOA from my buddy and I should be able to get that ASN and
associated /32.
--=20
Charles N Wyble charles@knownelement.com @charlesnw on twitter
http://blog.knownelement.com
Building alternative,global scale,secure, cost effective bit moving =
platform
for tomorrows alternate default free zone.
