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 ...
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.
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?
There's lots of old C's that aren't being announced any more. You might
be able to find one that someone can lend you to use.
Strangley a search for "portable class C" on ebay didn't find anything
though...
Ralph Doncaster
principal, IStop.com
Technically, you can't sell them to someone else.
-Dave
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 07:37:34AM -0400, Ralph Doncaster mooed:
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:13:50 -0600
From: Joel Baker
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...)
/20 if single-homed[*], /21 or equivalent non-contiguous blocks
iff multihomed.
[*] Must it be contiguous? I'd need to look...
Eddy
>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. 
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
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
At the request of my employer, I will be making no further posts on this
topic. Disclaimers are apparently insufficient, though I would politely
remind everyone reading that I spoke on my behalf only, and not that of
the company.