So, after lurking here for about 4 years I actually have a question... We're a fairly small ISP; we currently have a /24, a /25, and a /28 allocated piecemeal from our upstream's two /19s. (Upstream is Viawest). Now that we've rolled out DSL we're needing a bit more space - based on current trends about 200 addresses over the next 6-12 months. Viawest has just told me that their policy is that customers who go over a /23 worth of address space must request further space directly from ARIN. In other words, we're supposed to call ARIN up and get a private /24 for this. We're not multi-homed; we have absolutely no need for a private /24 instead of a chunk of Viawest's existing space. We're not growing rapidly and it's very unlikely we'll more than 4 class C's worth of address space in the next 4 years. Questions: can we actually qualify for a /24 from ARIN? Will all NSPs accept a private /24 announced from Viawest without us having to track down each NSP and negotiate with them? Will the ARIN fee be $2500? Is refusing to provide small blocks out of their own address space a common practise for NSPs? The private /24 issue makes me mildly grouchy due to the whole "global routing table size" issue, but the $2500/year makes me REALLY grouchy, especially as that same /24 would cost our upstream about $40/year. Thanks - -Robert Tarrall.- Unix System/Network Admin E.Central/Neighborhood Link
If you can't justify the cost business for a /20 then get a new upstream. Sales people are attempting to contact you at this moment ... --On Wednesday, 26 June 2002 22:22 -0600 tarrall@ecentral.com wrote:
So, after lurking here for about 4 years I actually have a question...
We're a fairly small ISP; we currently have a /24, a /25, and a /28 allocated piecemeal from our upstream's two /19s. (Upstream is Viawest). Now that we've rolled out DSL we're needing a bit more space - based on current trends about 200 addresses over the next 6-12 months.
Viawest has just told me that their policy is that customers who go over a /23 worth of address space must request further space directly from ARIN.
In other words, we're supposed to call ARIN up and get a private /24 for this. We're not multi-homed; we have absolutely no need for a private /24 instead of a chunk of Viawest's existing space. We're not growing rapidly and it's very unlikely we'll more than 4 class C's worth of address space in the next 4 years.
Questions: can we actually qualify for a /24 from ARIN? Will all NSPs accept a private /24 announced from Viawest without us having to track down each NSP and negotiate with them? Will the ARIN fee be $2500? Is refusing to provide small blocks out of their own address space a common practise for NSPs?
The private /24 issue makes me mildly grouchy due to the whole "global routing table size" issue, but the $2500/year makes me REALLY grouchy, especially as that same /24 would cost our upstream about $40/year.
Thanks - -Robert Tarrall.- Unix System/Network Admin E.Central/Neighborhood Link
-- Joseph T. Klein +1 414 628 3380 Network Guy jtk@titania.net "... the true value of the Internet is its connectedness ..." -- John W. Stewart III
Viawest has just told me that their policy is that customers who go over a /23 worth of address space must request further space directly from ARIN.
What they (Viawest) are saying you is that they are too small to serve you. Your domain record says you are in Denver, so I'm guessing you must have many choices for ISP. Find another, have them toss a /22 or more your way, and put Viawest behind you. -mark
I have contacted Mr. Tarrall privately about this matter (since I happen to work for the ISP in question for my day job...); more than that, I probably can't say without violating NDAs, except that I believe there may have been a breakdown in communications. 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...) Insert standard disclaimers here, I'm a router jockey not an officer, etc. -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
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. 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. 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?
JB> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:13:50 -0600 JB> From: Joel Baker JB> My *personal* opinion is that wise ISPs only punt customers JB> to ARIN once they reach the point where they can, in fact, JB> have a normal ARIN netblock assigned directly to them JB> (currently a /20, unless I slept through another change...) /20 if single-homed[*], /21 or equivalent non-contiguous blocks iff multihomed. [*] Must it be contiguous? I'd need to look... Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
participants (6)
-
David Schwartz -
E.B. Dreger -
Joel Baker -
Joseph T. Klein -
Mark Kent -
tarrall＠ecentral.com