[144774] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Sep 19 02:51:00 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <005a01cc766a$f3ce3450$db6a9cf0$@iname.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:48:23 -0700
To: frnkblk@iname.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I disagree. I think that the underlying physical topology of your =
network is something
ARIN is quite intentionally agnostic about.
Owen
On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:25 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> I understand that tunneling meets the letter of the ARIN policy, but =
I'll make the bold assumption that wasn't the spirit of the policy when =
it was written. Maybe the policy needs to be amended to clarify that.
>=20
> Frank
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leigh Porter [mailto:leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com]=20
> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 6:37 PM
> To: frnkblk@iname.com; 'Charles N Wyble'; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on =
building a nationwide network
>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnkblk@iname.com]
>> Sent: 18 September 2011 23:14
>> To: 'Charles N Wyble'; nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: RE: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on
>> building a nationwide network
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Frank
>=20
> I'll happily 'multihome' anybody over a GRE tunnel if it helps ;-)
>=20
> --
> Leigh
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email=20
> ______________________________________________________________________
>=20
