[NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?
tvarriale at comcast.net
Tue May 20 23:31:45 CDT 2008
AFAIK, ARIN doesn't give out /22s anymore.
Last time I went to the well...it's was a /20 or better.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Dills" <andy at xecu.net>
To: "William Herrin" <herrin-nanog at dirtside.com>
Cc: <nanog at 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
> 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)
> 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 Dills
> Xecunet, Inc.
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG at nanog.org
More information about the NANOG