nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv4 smaller than /24 leasing?


From: Justin Wilson <lists () mtin net>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 19:20:26 -0500

And this is exactly what other companies are doing.  The traditional way of doing a startup ISP is:

1.You get provider assigned IP space
2.You grow big enough to get your own IP space, historically from ARIN.  Nowadays you have to buy it on the open market.
3.You re-adddress your network for the IP space you have.
4.Chewing up the /24 when you may not too in order to meet justification.

So now, we have a startups and growing ISPs.  I have multiple clients who are in the exact same scenario I am going to 
describe.

They are a startup and can’t justify a /24 so they hope to find two backbone providers to play ball.  They hope one 
will assign them a full /24 so they can participate in BGP. That provider is probably charging them $1 per IP per 
month.  Okay fine, pay it.  As said in a previous e-mail, if they can’t afford it they shouldn’t be in business right?  
They go through the ARIN process to get an ASN and can now participate in BGP.  Great, they bring up BGP and work 
towards having the cash flow to buy a /24 on the open market.  Again, if they can’t afford to play they shouldn’t be in 
business right?  Cash flow pays for the ability to buy a /24 in 8-14 months.  $4,000 plus the $2500 they spent on 
leasing fees.  Again, if they can’t afford it don’t play huh?

So now, they have a /24 they really don’t need.  In order to meet ARIN justification they hand out IPs to people who 
really aren’t in their business model just to meet justification.  Before you know it they are using 80% of a /24 when 
they really only need half or less of it.  The /24 is too small to scale of giving everyone publics, so their network 
design is centered around 1: many NAT, CGN, and other such things.

How is this a good use of resources when they have to justify 80% of a /24 in which they only need half of? I have 5 
ISPs I work with that have 300-500 customer and are using a /26 or smaller of IP space.  They can’t have true 
redundancy they are able to manage because they can’t do BGP themselves.  So they are tied to one ISP because thats 
where they get their space from.  Or, going back to the original part of this thread, they lease from someone across a 
tunnel.  Even then, they are still tied to someone.


Justin Wilson
j2sw () mtin net

www.mtin.net
www.midwest-ix.com

On Jan 4, 2018, at 7:01 PM, Dovid Bender <dovid () telecurve com> wrote:

I can tell you that when we started (and there were IP's still available)
we first leased from another company to get our feet when and run tests
before we requested our own resources.

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 6:21 PM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:

There are hundreds of ISPs with under 500 customers. More start up every
week. No need to marginalize them.


Hi Mike,

No disrespect, but anyone who can't afford to spend $5000 on resources
critical to their activity is not in the Internet business or any other
kind of business and should probably stop lying to themselves about that.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com  bill () herrin us
Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>




Current thread: