[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-132: ISP Sub-assignments Do Not Require Specific Customer Relationships
Actually, Jack, apologies, this should be with 131. Long day. Can you
reply in that thread? Thanks.
On 2/11/11, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jack, care to elaborate as to why? +1 is meaningless since all that
> was presented by the previous poster appears to be a straw man.
> Can you explain 'harm'?
> On 2/11/11, Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net> wrote:
>> On 2/11/2011 3:18 PM, Charles O'Hern wrote:
>>> 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
>> Not really, I can't believe the level of deaggregation there is
>> currently. entire /16's deaggregated to /24 networks? Really?
>>> 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?
>> If a network justifies their space, then I see no harm in them using a
>> network which has been provided to them. There are cases where people
>> have switched ISPs and not been required to renumber. There are also
>> situations such as mine, where I still hold 2x /20's from one of my
>> transit feeds, and the connectivity I hold with them is minuscule. It's
>> deaggregated because I run BGP with multiple peers.
>> It should be noted that current policy doesn't actually distinguish
>> between them really. There is no connectivity required clause. An LIR
>> must justify allocations the same as an 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.
>> That doesn't need to change. What it's saying is the policy referring to
>> ISP also includes LIR and using LIR also includes ISP definitions. ie,
>> it doesn't matter if you are an LIR or an ISP, these are the
>> justification rules.
>> The policy doesn't currently mandate any type of connectivity (which is
>> really the largest difference between an LIR and an ISP). 2011-3 doesn't
>> change that.
>> The suggestion on prop-132 is to clarify the point. However, I think all
>> of it misses the bigger problem. How do we handle justification, audit
>> and recourse in an IPv4 depleted market?
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.