wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network

Frank Bulk frnkblk at iname.com
Sun Sep 18 17:12:05 CDT 2011


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

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles N Wyble [mailto:charles at knownelement.com] 
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:58 AM
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network

On 09/17/2011 06:52 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>>> I have a small ISP customer who is not multi-homed, and is using
>>> about a /21 and a half of space, and is expanding. Their upstream
>>> is refusing to give them more space, so they wanted to get their
>>> own, and give back the space to the upstream, with the possible
>>> exception of a small block for their servers, which would be very
>>> difficult to renumber. We explained this all, and the response we
>>> got from ARIN was that we needed to have a full /20 from the
>>> upstream, at which time we could easily get a /20 of new space. In
>>> order to qualify for the immediate need, we would need to show
>>> need for the entire /20, of which we would need to fully utilize
>>> (renumber into) within 30 days. That is not even remotely
>>> possible.
>>>
>> Or, they could easily multihome and qualify at a much smaller
>> threshold.
> Unfortunately, this is prohibitively expensive. They are small rural telcos who are connected to a collective state-wide fiber network. Any second provider would could an order of magnitude (or more) more than what they have, and would likely be delivered over the same fiber network anyway.

Um.... really? You can't find anyone out there who would give you an
LOA? No friendly ISP? I'm getting LOA from a buddy of mine that
administers a couple existing ISP networks. It's not that difficult in
my opinion. I mean does it have to be a wireline upstream provider? Or
can it just be any AS who is friendly? I guess it's different for me as
this is a green field deployment and I expect to peer all over the
United States at dozens of POPS. As opposed to being a more traditional
access network provider in a particular geographic region.



>  
>>> The problem with this whole thing is that I have no less than 4
>>> ISPs that are in almost the same boat.
>> Then propose a policy change to rectify it.
> Noted, and planned :-)

I look forward to those discussions. I'm kind of intrigued by policy
now, after starting this process. At first I was a bit irritated but now
after John/Owen posted links and comments, it's a walk in the park. Just
waiting on an LOA from my buddy and I should be able to get that ASN and
associated /32.


-- 
Charles N Wyble charles at knownelement.com @charlesnw on twitter

http://blog.knownelement.com

Building alternative,global scale,secure, cost effective bit moving platform
for tomorrows alternate default free zone.






More information about the NANOG mailing list