On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 07:32:15AM +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
It is my belief, based on experience in doing just this and from dealing with APNIC for several years, that being a small ISP or network user does NOT necessarily mean you are 'shut out' in any shape or form whatsoever; you can in-fact have one or both carriers take your case(s) for multi-homing to APNIC and potentially have them allocate a /24 (or whatever is appropriate) --- this address space would not be part of the carriers CIDR block and need not give the carrier leverage over your company or network as the address space can be delegate to the end-user not the carrier.
APNIC almost have a policy on micro-allocations for the purpose of multi-homing: http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/docs/proposal-multihome-assign.html http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/results/index.html#2 This was due to become finalised in December, last I heard. No need to have carriers "take your case(s)" to APNIC. It's also commonplace for ISPs in NZ (and almost everywhere else in the world, as far as I can tell) to punch holes in each others' PI netblocks to allow PA-delegated blocks to be used for multi-homing. This is sufficiently recognised as common practice that it will be documented in the current-practices document in the ietf multi6 wg.
I have done this before (after discussing this with people from APNIC and conforming that this was indeed a legitimate situation), is there any reason to believe that this situation has changed radically?
Not that I know of. There are barriers in place to discourage too many people from multihoming. These are important, since the current routing system is not scaling well, and a rush of multihoming at the edge (using routing-based mechanisms) will make it blow up. Joe - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog