For multihomed, /22 is still the rule.
Owen DeLong
ARIN AC
On May 21, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Security Admin (NetSec) wrote:
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
