nanog mailing list archives
RE: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?
From: "William Mullaney" <wmullaney () annese com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 22:34:25 -0400
I got a /22 in January, and was told by someone from ARIN that the policy below only applied to allocations to ISP's, not to assignments for end customers. At the time, they said an end user must show at least 25% immediate usage (so a /24) and that there was no requirement for future usage. In my experience, if you can show you have some semblance of ability, two real peers, and an existing and established business, you should be able to get the request through easily in about a week, start to finish. When you're ready, fill out the request form, the worst that can happen is they reject you or defer you until you can provide more info. If you have questions for/about ARIN, call them (number is on the website) and talk to one of their people, they've been pretty knowledgeable, friendly, and helpful in my experience. -Will -----Original Message----- From: Tony Varriale [mailto:tvarriale () comcast net] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:03 PM To: Andy Dills Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? Thanks for the info. We needed larger than /22 anyways. I am a bit surprised that they will hand out a small allocaiton for multihomers. These days it's very easy to do. And, could be a easy way to horde some v4. Notice the caveats: To qualify under the IPv4 Multi-homing policy, your organization must prove an intent to multi-home, demonstrate utilization for at least a /23-worth of IP addresses assigned by upstream providers, and provide 3-, 6-, and 12-month utilization projections. In addition, your organization must agree to use the requested IPv4 address space to renumber out of your current address space, and to return the original address space to your upstream provider(s) once the renumbering is complete. Additional space will not be allocated until this is completed. Organizations that qualify under this policy may also qualify and request space under ARIN's general IPv4 allocation policy. Of course, this could be smoke and mirrors. Not sure. tv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Dills" <andy () xecu net> To: "Tony Varriale" <tvarriale () comcast net> Cc: <nanog () nanog org> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:53 AM Subject: Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?
On Tue, 20 May 2008, Tony Varriale wrote:AFAIK, ARIN doesn't give out /22s anymore. Last time I went to the well...it's was a /20 or better.Nah, it's /22 for multi-homed networks, /20 for single-homed. http://www.arin.net/registration/guidelines/ipv4_initial_alloc.html 4.3.2.2 Multihomed Connection For end-users who demonstrate an intent to announce the requested
space in
a multihomed fashion, the minimum block of IP address space assigned
is a
/22. If assignments smaller than a /22 are needed, multihomed
end-users
should contact their upstream providers. When prefixes are assigned
which
are longer than /20, they will be from a block reserved for that
purpose.
Are there really networks who can justify a /20 that aren't
multi-homed?
The mind boggles. Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 ---
Current thread:
- Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?, (continued)
- Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? Tony Varriale (May 21)
- Re: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? Deepak Jain (May 21)
- Re: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? David Coulson (May 21)
- Re: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? Jack Bates (May 21)
- Re: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? David Coulson (May 21)
- Re: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? Deepak Jain (May 21)
- RE: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? McMasters, Jeremy (May 21)
- Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? Pete Templin (May 21)
- Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? Tony Varriale (May 21)
- Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? Robert E. Seastrom (May 21)
- RE: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? William Mullaney (May 21)
- Hughes Network Joe Blanchard (May 22)
- RE: Hughes Network rar (May 22)
- RE: Hughes Network Jason J. W. Williams (May 22)
- Re: Hughes Network Michael Holstein (May 22)
- Re: Hughes Network Jim Popovitch (May 22)
- RE: Hughes Network Jason J. W. Williams (May 22)
- RE: Hughes Network Jason J. W. Williams (May 22)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network Jim Popovitch (May 22)
- Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network James R. Cutler (May 22)
- nanog / nanog-announce subs (was Re: Announce list: Re: Hughes Network) Philip Smith (May 23)