[ppml] Definition of "Existing Known ISP"

On Apr 22, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Thus spake "Kevin Loch" <kloch at kl.net>
>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> According to Leslie, ARIN staff would like community input on the
>>> definition of "Existing Known ISP" in the NRPM.
>>>
>>> I would propose that the following definition seems self-evident
>>> to me, but, I would like to see what others here have to say:
>>>
>>> "An existing, known ISP is any ARIN Subscriber Organization
>>> who has received an IPv4 allocation from ARIN or an ARIN
>>> predecessor which now is an ARIN Subscriber Organization."
>>
>> s/allocation/allocation or direct assignment/
>>
>> There may be some orgs who elected to be an end user in there
>> IPv4 request who may wish to be considered an ISP under IPv6.
>> I wouldn't want an actual ISP to be forced into being considered
>> an End Site due to an historical but outdated decision.
>
> I fall in between these opinions.  It's easier for me to define the  
> phrase in terms of who it is (apparently) intended to exclude:
>
> 1.  "Existing" excludes new orgs without an established customer base.
> 2.  "Known" excludes orgs ARIN is not already aware of, either  
> directly or indirectly.
> 3.  "ISP" excludes orgs that are not in the business of providing  
> IP (v4 or v6) transit service.
>
> All of this combines together to form the overall picture that an  
> established ISP of any size should qualify, but a new entrant to  
> the market (i.e. someone with no track record) would not and should  
> go to their upstream for space.
>
A new entrant doesn't qualify under the first clause (existing known  
ISP), but, could qualify under
the second clause in the policy (or have a plan to assign 200 /48s to  
other organizations).

> Of course, it's not exactly clear on how long an org needs to be in  
> that state, or how many customers they need, to become an  
> "existing, known ISP". It will probably end up being a judgement  
> call on whether an org's track record demonstrates a bona fide  
> attempt at being an ISP/LIR and at least some success at doing so.   
> Specific examples (minus identifying information, of course) might  
> help us pin down where the line is.
>
Given that the policy for which this definition is required only  
refers to "existing known ISPs" receiving their
first v6 allocation from ARIN and has a separate provision for anyone  
who is not an existing known ISP,
I would say it is safe to exclude the following:
	Anyone who has already received v6 from ARIN (initial allocation no  
longer applies)
	Any ISP which does not yet have v4 from ARIN (they should qualify  
under the 200 /48s provision
		rather than the existing known ISP).

> To Mr. Thomas's point, I don't think an ISP that uses an IPv4  
> assignment or sub-allocation from their upstream should be  
> disqualified from getting an IPv6 direct allocation.  OTOH, an org  
> using an IPv4 direct assignment probably should, because part of  
> getting one of those is not being an ISP.
>
While I agree with you, I'm not sure they should qualify under the  
"existing known ISP" policy rather
than the plan to assign 200 /48s provision.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/attachments/20070422/61227d2b/attachment.bin