On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Randy Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > Not for anything even close to reasonable cost. We're talking 100+ miles of > fiber that would have to be newly installed.
Hi Randy, At the customer counts you're talking about (more than a /22, less than a /20) you can keep email and web running with a handful of T1s. Or splurge on a T3. Neither requires construction of 100 miles of new fiber. It isn't N+1 but it's a meaningful reliability enhancement for the most critical services and it qualifies you as multihomed from ARIN's perspective. >> What you mean is that they can't get a second upstream at a price >> that's viable for their customer base. > > Of course that is what I mean. If the companies I am talking about > had billions of dollars, then there would not be an issue. But, they > would also no longer be the companies I am talking about. Thousands. N+1 costs more but let's keep our eyes on the ball. To be multihomed you need thousands of dollars. Even way out in the boonies. >> 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. > > I agree that separate proposals may be better. 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.
