On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 01:56:26AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
My *personal* opinion is that wise ISPs only punt customers to ARIN once they reach the point where they can, in fact, have a normal ARIN netblock assigned directly to them (currently a /20, unless I slept through another change...)
The guidelines have a strong preference for singly-homed networks to use IP address space allocated to them from their upstreams. I can think of no logical reason* an ISP would prefer their customers to go to ARIN rather than deal with them. The global routing table is better off for it as well, as the customer's /20 would be a new route, rather than being included in their provider's presumably larger block.
The assumption that the ISP has a larger block is not always a wise one to make.
On the other hand, I can think of many reasons a customer would prefer to deal with ARIN than their upstream, assuming the meager cost wasn't a factor and they don't mind polluting the global table a tad. Of course, that's not really an operational issue.
Most of the places I've worked would be charging them for the IP usage either way, since the ISP has to pay ARIN, eventually...
DS
* The only reason I could possibly think of is if the ISP is afraid that the large allocation will impact their future allocations because they don't have the confidence or competence to extract a proper justification from their customer and present/defend that justification to ARIN when their next allocation comes up. But this wasn't the reason you were thinking of, right?
See above. Sometimes you have lots of IP space, but nothing *large*, due to business constraints. This often changes over time, but some of us don't have multiple legacy /16s from Back In The Day (and then again, some of us do - but not the 'us' I work for, anymore). Not under NDA, since all of it can be found by asking ARIN, of course. :) -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
Small ISP or no, how far off are you from begin multi-homed? Growing pains in the Internet are very real--time and money. If you're growing only another /24 in the next 6-12, then you may be able to squeeze that our of your current provider (i.e. buy time to see if DSL will pull in the revenue to justify the additional costs and administration). If you only have one provider and did not mention any poor service, they very well may be worth keeping as a redundant link--but they will always own and pay for those addresses. Then you must consider whether leasing from a second provider or leasing from ARIN is best for you. If you see continued growth, I would make the plunge and revel in the discoveries. You can be allocated blocks from ARIN in a 2-3 week period of time; another provider bringing you a DS-3 (or whatever) could take 6+ depending on your location. Keep your plans flexible. --jeff "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send." --Jon Postel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel Baker" <lucifer@lightbearer.com> To: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:18 PM Subject: Re: ARIN IP allocation questionn
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 01:56:26AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
My *personal* opinion is that wise ISPs only punt customers to ARIN
they reach the point where they can, in fact, have a normal ARIN netblock assigned directly to them (currently a /20, unless I slept through another change...)
The guidelines have a strong preference for singly-homed networks to use IP address space allocated to them from their upstreams. I can think of no logical reason* an ISP would prefer their customers to go to ARIN rather than deal with them. The global routing table is better off for it as well, as the customer's /20 would be a new route, rather than being included in their provider's presumably larger block.
The assumption that the ISP has a larger block is not always a wise one to make.
On the other hand, I can think of many reasons a customer would prefer to deal with ARIN than their upstream, assuming the meager cost wasn't a factor and they don't mind polluting the global table a tad. Of course, that's not really an operational issue.
Most of the places I've worked would be charging them for the IP usage either way, since the ISP has to pay ARIN, eventually...
DS
* The only reason I could possibly think of is if the ISP is afraid
once that
the large allocation will impact their future allocations because they don't have the confidence or competence to extract a proper justification from their customer and present/defend that justification to ARIN when their next allocation comes up. But this wasn't the reason you were thinking of, right?
See above. Sometimes you have lots of IP space, but nothing *large*, due to business constraints. This often changes over time, but some of us don't have multiple legacy /16s from Back In The Day (and then again, some of us do - but not the 'us' I work for, anymore).
Not under NDA, since all of it can be found by asking ARIN, of course. :) --
Joel Baker System Administrator -
*************************************************************************** lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:18:50 -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 01:56:26AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
My *personal* opinion is that wise ISPs only punt customers to ARIN once they reach the point where they can, in fact, have a normal ARIN netblock assigned directly to them (currently a /20, unless I slept through another change...)
The guidelines have a strong preference for singly-homed networks to use IP address space allocated to them from their upstreams. I can think of no logical reason* an ISP would prefer their customers to go to ARIN rather than deal with them. The global routing table is better off for it as well, as the customer's /20 would be a new route, rather than being included in their provider's presumably larger block.
The assumption that the ISP has a larger block is not always a wise one to make.
Worst case, the ISP can take the customer's request to ARIN and request one twice as large. The ISP can even give the customer most of what's left of its current allocation and then request another one larger than the one it currently holds.
On the other hand, I can think of many reasons a customer would prefer to deal with ARIN than their upstream, assuming the meager cost wasn't a factor and they don't mind polluting the global table a tad. Of course, that's not really an operational issue.
Most of the places I've worked would be charging them for the IP usage either way, since the ISP has to pay ARIN, eventually...
Yes, but the ISP pays at most what their customer would, usually less.
* The only reason I could possibly think of is if the ISP is afraid that the large allocation will impact their future allocations because they don't have the confidence or competence to extract a proper justification from their customer and present/defend that justification to ARIN when their next allocation comes up. But this wasn't the reason you were thinking of, right?
See above. Sometimes you have lots of IP space, but nothing *large*, due to business constraints.
Why does this matter? The customer shouldn't particularly care how he gets his block. One time when I requested a /22 from my provider, I got two /23's. So what?
This often changes over time, but some of us don't have multiple legacy /16s from Back In The Day (and then again, some of us do - but not the 'us' I work for, anymore).
Well, if you want more IP space, you won't get it by referring your customer's to ARIN. And the policy that singly-homed customers should strongly prefer to get IP space from their providers stands. DS
participants (3)
-
David Schwartz -
Jeff Nelson -
Joel Baker