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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "William Herrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
