BGP multihoming

Apologies for a RIPE question on NANOG, although I believe this issue will
soon enough to be relevant for the ARIN region as well.

I had a customer ask if we could provide him with BGP such that he could be
multihomed. He already has 128 IP addresses from another ISP. Obviously a
/25 is a non go for multihoming as everyone are going to ignore his route.

I would then need to help him with acquiring a /24 PI. Which appears to be
impossible as RIPE does no longer assign PI space and PI can not be
reassigned and thus be bought.

Is assigning a /24 from my own PA space for the purpose of BGP multihoming
considered sufficient "need"?

Could he get some PI from another region, such as ARIN? How does others
handle this situation?

Regards,

Baldur

I had a customer ask if we could provide him with BGP such that he could be
multihomed. He already has 128 IP addresses from another ISP. Obviously a
/25 is a non go for multihoming as everyone are going to ignore his route.

Not necessarily everyone, but a lot of providers will filter that. More headaches than it's worth.

I would then need to help him with acquiring a /24 PI. Which appears to be
impossible as RIPE does no longer assign PI space and PI can not be
reassigned and thus be bought.

Is assigning a /24 from my own PA space for the purpose of BGP multihoming
considered sufficient "need"?

I haven't looked at RIPE policies in a while, but I would imagine that assigning a customer a /24 of your space because they need to multihome is considered a justifiable use.

Could he get some PI from another region, such as ARIN? How does others
handle this situation?

Most likely no, for two reasons. 1. Most RIRs don't assign IPv4 /24s to end-users except in very special cases, 2. The smallest PI block they would assign is usually something like a /21 or /22, so your customer would need to be justifiably using that much space before they could apply for a PI block, and 3, if the customer is in an area outside of $RIR's service area, they would direct them to contact the appropriate RIR.

I also hope your customer is making plans for IPv6 deployment.

jms

Interesting question, and to add to that, I have another one. With the
rapid depletion of IPv4 address space from ARIN, are there private
end-user companies that are leasing off unused portions of their assigned
address blocks to other private and unrelated end user companies? Does
that cause any problems where address space is being advertised from a
non-assigned AS?

Thanks,

Mike

* Baldur Norddahl

Apologies for a RIPE question on NANOG, although I believe this issue
will soon enough to be relevant for the ARIN region as well.

Relevant perhaps, but as the policies differ, so may the correct answers...

I had a customer ask if we could provide him with BGP such that he
could be multihomed. He already has 128 IP addresses from another
ISP. Obviously a /25 is a non go for multihoming as everyone are
going to ignore his route.

I would then need to help him with acquiring a /24 PI. Which appears
to be impossible as RIPE does no longer assign PI space and PI can
not be reassigned and thus be bought.

There is another option, namely if your customer becomes a RIPE NCC
member (i.e., an LIR), he'll get a PA /22. (Of course, you could offer
to perform all the administrative work is to start and operate an LIR on
your customer's behalf, for a reasonable fee.)

Is assigning a /24 from my own PA space for the purpose of BGP
multihoming considered sufficient "need"?

Not with current policies, no, as the multihoming clause only applied
specifically to PI assignments, not pA. However, if you customer can
show that he'll be using at least 128 addresses (i.e., 50% of a /24)
within a year, he does qualify for an assignment of a /24. Plans to
renumber out of his current /25 would count towards that.

Tore

how do you mean 'non-assigned' ?
perhaps you have an example in the routing system today you could point at?

* Tore Anderson

* Baldur Norddahl

Is assigning a /24 from my own PA space for the purpose of BGP
multihoming considered sufficient "need"?

Not with current policies, no

That was then. With current policies: yes.

To elaborate a bit, the RIPE Community just reached consensus on a
policy change that makes the size and the purpose of an assignment
entirely a local decision. That means that if you and your customer
agree that a /X is needed for purpose Y, and you as the LIR have the
available space and the willingness to make that assignment, you are now
free to make it.

The new IPV4 policy does not mandate any limits to what X and Y might
be, except for the fact that Y must somehow involve ´┐Żoperating a
network´┐Ż (your use case certainly qualifies).

Tore