[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-132: ISP Sub-assignments Do Not Require Specific Customer Relationships

In regards to both this:

On 2/11/11 10:47 AM, George Bonser wrote:
> I think the notion that someone had to have physical connectivity to the
> LIR in order to get IPs is a conclusion to which many have jumped simply
> because that is the usual case, but not necessarily the rule.  An LIR
> could be a consultant to a "customer", could be a professional services
> vendor, etc.  An LIR getting a customer set up with IP addresses even if
> that customer uses a different connectivity provider shouldn't be a
> problem.

And this:

On 2/11/11 10:08 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/11/2011 11:52 AM, John Curran wrote:
>> 2) Are there any minimum prefix size restrictions (since there is no
>>     routing relationship implied between the customer and the ISP which
>>     provides aggregation)
> There currently aren't, and even in cases of direct transit customers, there is no guarantee in the routing table that a prefix size will be maintained.
> This is seen in the current DFZ in large volumes of deaggregation.

This seems to promote disconnecting the concept of LIR from ISP.  While there are already LIRs what aren't ISPs, isn't that considered to be the exception?
Wouldn't that in turn lead to greater de-aggregation?

I'm not opposed, but I am confused. Don't we want to prevent and/or retard de-aggregation?  Are the consequences of de-aggregation of less magnitude than the consequences of
failing to detach the notion of the LIR from the notion of the ISP?

Additionally, if so we'd have to change Draft Policy ARIN-2011-3 as it states that "(a)   The terms ISP and LIR are used interchangeably in this document and
any use of either term shall be construed to include both meanings."  I'm assuming that "this document" to infer that it to applies to all sections of the NRPM.

Charles O'Hern
Network Operations

TCSN - The Computer Shop Netlink
1306 Pine St. Paso Robles CA 93446
1-(805) 227-7000  1-(800) 974-DISK  abuse at