[95253] in North American Network Operators' Group
The Chicken or the Egg.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (list account)
Tue Mar 13 13:13:02 2007
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:03:17 -0400
From: "list account" <mymailinglistaccount@gmail.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
------=_Part_16017_6254051.1173805397338
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Well the subject describes my frustration.
We are a small ISP that currently has 6 /24s. Over the last year we have
inked some deals for some hotels and apartment complexes that would push us
over the required /20 to get our own allocation. Many of these locations
are new sites nearing their completion so with in 90 to 120 days. The
first 6 locations complete over the next 2 to 6 weeks and the vendor that
handle the hospitality networks want their addresses now. The road block
has been that ARIN wants us to get the remaining /24s from our upstream,
assign them to our customers then get our /20, then renumber out network.
Many of these hotels are big chains and they don't seem to want deal with
this not to mention it makes us look even smaller.
In my limited experience ARIN seems to not want to work with the small
operator. Maybe I got someone on a bad day or maybe I am using the wrong
verbage. Would the 4.2.1.4 Slow Start apply in my case? What about the
4.2.6 for Cable Operators? It seems kind of unfair, if I read this
correctly, that they gain IPs biased on the number of homes that could
purchase service. We have a WiSP network with a very large foot print
where I am using most of my address space. I wan't to minimize renumbering
my customers.
To add to this I want to be portable. Since AT&T has bought BellSouth my
upstream provider is now declaring war on me. But this is a rant for
another time.
------=_Part_16017_6254051.1173805397338
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Well the subject describes my frustration.<br><br>We are a small ISP
that currently has 6 /24s. Over the last year we have inked some deals
for some hotels and apartment complexes that would push us over the
required /20 to get our own allocation. Many of these locations are
new sites nearing their completion so with in 90 to 120 days. The
first 6 locations complete over the next 2 to 6 weeks and the vendor
that handle the hospitality networks want their addresses now. The
road block has been that ARIN wants us to get the remaining /24s from
our upstream, assign them to our customers then get our /20, then
renumber out network. Many of these hotels are big chains and they
don't seem to want deal with this not to mention it makes us look even
smaller.
<br><br>In my limited experience ARIN seems to not want to work with
the small operator. Maybe I got someone on a bad day or maybe I am
using the wrong verbage. Would the <a href="http://4.2.1.4/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">4.2.1.4</a>
Slow Start apply in my case? What about the 4.2.6 for Cable
Operators? It seems kind of unfair, if I read this correctly, that
they gain IPs biased on the number of homes that could purchase
service. We have a WiSP network with a very large foot print where I
am using most of my address space. I wan't to minimize renumbering my
customers.
<br><br>To add to this I want to be portable. Since AT&T has
bought BellSouth my upstream provider is now declaring war on me.
But this is a rant for another time.
------=_Part_16017_6254051.1173805397338--
