[ppml] Definition of "Existing Known ISP"
owen at delong.com
Sun Apr 22 23:25:58 EDT 2007
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 an End Site due to an historical but outdated decision.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
> 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
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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML