I understand that tunneling meets the letter of the ARIN policy, but I'll make the bold assumption that wasn't the spirit of the policy when it was written. Maybe the policy needs to be amended to clarify that.
Frank -----Original Message----- From: Leigh Porter [mailto:leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 6:37 PM To: frnk...@iname.com; 'Charles N Wyble'; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] > Sent: 18 September 2011 23:14 > To: 'Charles N Wyble'; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: RE: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on > building a nationwide network > > Where I live in rural America, I would not be surprised that someone > who wanted to start an ISP might only be able to cost-justify one > upstream. When one Internet T-1 is $1,200/month, getting a second T-1 > for that price from another provider just to get an AS or PI is > definitely cost-prohibitive and may go against their business plan. > > Our own company has just one upstream provider (from geographically > diverse POPs), our state's telecom coop, and to multi-home solely to > meet ARIN's policy doesn't make sense. Fortunately we were using > enough address space to meet the /20 requirement. > > Charles, if you wrote a policy that allowed smaller ISPs to obtain a PI > without the multihoming requirement if they demonstrated that > multihoming was burdensome, I would support it at arin-ppml. > > Frank I'll happily 'multihome' anybody over a GRE tunnel if it helps ;-) -- Leigh ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
