[ppml] Definition of "Existing Known ISP"

[Owen DeLong]

1.	I don't believe my proposed definition in any way excludes ASP
or colo. providers.  In fact, I have worked with a number of colo. and
ASP providers who meet that definition.

2.	If you examine the full v6 policy in the NRPM, you will notice that
there are methods for v6-only qualification as well as the method in
question for qualification based on existing v4 status.  The intent of
this policy is to facilitate migration, not to be the complete v6  
policy.

Owen

On Apr 30, 2007, at 5:42 AM, Michael Hertrick wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> There has already been a lot said regarding this topic, and while I
> have read much of it I honestly have not read every last word posted.
> I did search the thread for keywords like web hosting and
> colocation/co-location, and ASP and found nothing, so I believe that
> most of what I am about to say is not redundant.
>
> I think that today's definition of ISP not not limited to user access,
> transit, and backbone services as it once was.  Companies providing
> web hosting and co-location services should be considered ISPs.  For
> that matter, there are also companies that call themselves ASPs,
> Application Service Providers, that have the same Internet number
> needs as ISPs.  I suppose that an ASP is an ISP even though the
> inverse is not necessarily true.  There are undoubtedly many Internet
> related services that would constitute a company's recognition as an
> Internet Service Provider.  Does the ARIN staff acknowledge that?
>
> In response to the numerous recommendations that IPv4 has some
> influence on the IPv6 policies, I think that the definition of
> "existing, known ISP in the ARIN region" needs to remain somewhat
> ambiguous.  A company should be defined by what they do rather than
> how they happen to fit the IPv4 policy.  To exclude companies based on
> how they comply with IPv4 policies would be unfair because those
> policies were only intended to apply to IPv4 address allocation.
> Therefore IPv6 allocations should be available to companies that
> provide Internet services.
>
> Perhaps the S. in I.S.P. should be pluralized because nowadays there
> are more than one type of service.  Or perhaps the term "services
> provider" should be used in lieu of the acronym ISP.
>
>
> Thanks,
> ~Mike.
>
>
> 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."
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> -
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
>> (PPML at arin.net).
>> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFGNeQZcJVdtfpkLb8RAowfAJ4r3dkk3tTvb5cczD325irxh0lv0ACff+4s
> 59a3VrNkkJ3GTkXpbTbniUs=
> =qRcM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070430/0ae25b6b/attachment.p7s>