wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network
dorn at hetzel.org
Tue Sep 20 19:24:30 UTC 2011
On Sep 20, 2011 3:21 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > If you open the door to that sort of interpretation, then every org with
a T1 and a backup dial-up connection can claim to be "multihomed".
> You say that like it's a bad thing.
> > In either of these cases, it's not enough to just have the connection.
The ARIN NRPM definition of Multihomed includes "has one or more routing
prefixes announced by at least two of its upstream ISPs." Are you really
going to announce your prefix[es] to both your real provider _and_ your
ridiculously low bandwidth provider? Even if you prepend the latter
considerably, you're likely to receive some traffic via that path.
> If you have a GRE tunnel to each of 2 ISPs and announce your route over
BGP to them, or, have some other configuration with them and they both
announce your prefix to the rest of the world, that meets the ARIN test. The
rest is an issue for the network administrator and not a matter for ARIN
> ARIN policy does not require your network to be functional or even useful.
It's up to each administrator to decide how they want to operate their
network and what level of dysfunction/lost packets they consider acceptable.
> >> It's a slippery slope from "v.90 not good enough" to "less than 2xOCn
> >> good enough" where n can be adjusted to suitably limit competition...
> > Perhaps the manual should be updated to replace "full-time connectivity"
with something a bit more fleshed out specifying that the full-time
connectivity be via dedicated circuit [frame-relay permanent virtual
circuits included, if you can still find a LEC willing to sell them] or PTP
> I would oppose such a policy change. I believe it is out of scope for
ARIN's mission of address administration.
It should be opposed because it would smack of restraint of trade, and that
is not a good place to be.
More information about the NANOG