nanog mailing list archives
RE: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?
From: "Security Admin (NetSec)" <secadmin () netsecdesign com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 11:16:26 -0700
I got a /22 from ARIN last year; ASN 36516. Is the /20 only rule relatively new? Not multi-homed yet because my 2nd provider does not support it yet. Best Regards, Edward Ray -----Original Message----- From: Tony Varriale [mailto:tvarriale () comcast net] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:32 PM To: Andy Dills Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? AFAIK, ARIN doesn't give out /22s anymore. Last time I went to the well...it's was a /20 or better. tv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Dills" <andy () xecu net> To: "William Herrin" <herrin-nanog () dirtside com> Cc: <nanog () nanog org> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:05 PM Subject: Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?
On Tue, 20 May 2008, William Herrin wrote:Hi folks, An administrative question about multihoming: I have a client who needs to multihome with multiple vendors for reliability purposes, currently in the Northern Virginia area and later on with a fail-over site, probably in Hawaii. They have only a very modest need for bandwidth and addresses (think: T1's and a few dozen servers) but they have to have BGP multihoming and can afford to pay for it. The last I heard, the way to make this happen was: Find a service provider with IP blocks available in ARIN's set of /8's that permit /24 announcements (networks 199, 204-207), buy a circuit and request a /24 for multihoming. Then buy circuits from other providers using that ISP's /24 and an AS# from ARIN. Is that still the way to make it happen? Are there alternate approaches (besides DNS games) that I should consider?They should just get their own /22 from ARIN. If the future fail-over site doesn't help them show a /23's worth of justification, break out the ultimate fudge factor: SSL. Yes, I know, some would argue this isn't responsible usage of community resources. However, if I was representing the interests of a company whose existence relies on working connectivity, my biggest concern would be provider independance. Altruism is something I encourage my competitors to indulge in. In fact, the increasing value and decreasing pool of prefixes should motivate any proper capitalist to air on the side of being greedy: just as they aren't making any more land, they aren't making any more IP(v4) space. My gut instinct has been telling me for half a decade that prefixes will get commoditized long before IPv6 settles in, and if I was representing the interests of a company who was in the situation you describe, I would certainly want to prepare for that possibility. ARIN really should allow direct allocation of /24s to multi-homed organizations. It wouldn't increase the table size, and it would reduce the wasteful (best common) practice I describe above. Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 --- _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG () nanog org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG () nanog org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog -- This mail was scanned by BitDefender For more informations please visit http://www.bitdefender.com -- This mail was scanned by BitDefender For more informations please visit http://www.bitdefender.co
Current thread:
- Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network Joe Abley (May 23)
- Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network Sam Stickland (May 23)
- Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network D'Arcy J.M. Cain (May 23)
- Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network Marshall Eubanks (May 23)
- RE: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network Jason J. W. Williams (May 23)
- Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network Jim Popovitch (May 23)
- Re: [Nanog-futures] Announce list: Re: Hughes Network Robert E. Seastrom (May 23)
- RE: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? Security Admin (NetSec) (May 21)
- Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? Owen DeLong (May 21)
- Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? Joe Warren-Meeks (May 22)
- Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? david raistrick (May 21)
- Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? Seth Mattinen (May 21)
- Re: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys? Sean Figgins (May 21)