[ppml] ppml 2002-7

[Owen DeLong]

--On Friday, February 14, 2003 7:34 PM -0500 "McBurnett, Jim" 
<jmcburnett at msmgmt.com> wrote:

> First, I do like the way this sounds. BUT, I have some concerns.
> see inline..
>> What do you think about doing this different then what is in
>> 2002-7 and
>> instead of lowering minimimum allocation/assignment and
>> having company
>> become new full member, doing this with special policy and special
>> associate membership. We can do it so that to get this
>> membership company
>> would need to have two ARIN full members sponsor it (i.e. its two
>> upstreams)
> It took me nearly a month to get the right people at one provider
> to agree they would multi-home. How long would it take to get 2
> providers to agree to this. I am sure we have some IP Admin's from large
> ISP's on here.. COMMENTS??
>
In my experience, it will take less time if there is a standardized
method of handling it available from ARIN than if it's a matter of
getting two ISPs to agree to work together with you.  This would
provide that solution.
>>   3. It is still possible for company that got this
>> associative membership
>>   to move to another isp and keep the ip block, but they
>> would need to
>>   make sure their new isp is willing to sponsor them.
> This could fall back to the same kinds of diffuculty.
> The policy would only work if ALL ISP's played well togather...
>
In my experience, if ARIN adopts a policy, the ISPs will try to work with
it unless it is going to melt their network.  The concern here would be
the route table growth possibly creating a flood of new prefixes that
would overwhelm the default-free zone.  I think the proposal in question
is unlikely to have that result, and, I think most of the backbones would
play fair until it became a problem.


> This is really good. If I don't know how to contact a customer I
> send a bill to every month, boy would that be dumb..
> Just as long as the ISP plays well.. You might learn a little about
> pain in the rear ISPs on the SPAM-L list... ISPs that are a haven for
> SPAMMERS, careless about blacklists, so they may care even less on
> this..

Maybe the way to solve this is to have ARIN bill 1/2 of the members annual
fee to each of the two sponsors.  The sponsors are expected to bill the
member for that.  That way, if the sponsor doesn't keep getting the money
from the member, they have a financial incentive to inform ARIN that the
member is unpaid.

> Bottom line is: UNTIL ARIN gets some real abilities to slap
> penalties of some kind on ISPs and end users, a lot of people
> won't care..
>
>
I think my paragraph above sort of addresses this particular situation.


Owen