[NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed May 21 19:08:32 UTC 2008


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:tvarriale at comcast.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:32 PM
> To: Andy Dills
> Cc: nanog at 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" <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
>> 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 at nanog.org
>> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG at 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
>





More information about the NANOG mailing list