On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Randy Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > I strongly disagree with your disagreement :-) and fully support the proposed > changes. > > I have worked with several small rural ISPs who really only have one option > for > upstream connectivity. In most cases, the upstream refuses to give out any > more > IP addresses. Some of these ISPs would be fine with a /21, while others would > need a /20, but cannot get a aggregate /20 from the upstream.
Hi Randy, BS. You can add satellite coverage anywhere, and I do mean anywhere. More, nearly all rural ISPs can contract a private point to point line to the nearest city with a carrier-neutral data center and pick up another ISP there. What you mean is that they can't get a second upstream at a price that's viable for their customer base. And I'll bet the same thing is true with IP addresses -- wave money and documentation at the upstream and see how fast they find more IPs for you. That's life in a post-IPv4 exhaustion world. If you can't afford it, use carrier NAT. At any rate, if Daniel ties the two proposals together, I'd bet he'll sink them both. Since the disucssion seems to focus on unifying registrant classes rather than reducing minimum allocations, I'd recommend he split the latter out. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
