[ppml] SPAM-WARN:Re: Policy Proposal: Definition of known ISP and changes toIPv6 initial allocation criteria

[Michael Thomas - Mathbox]

I object to the IPv4 /23 or IPv6 /44 requirement. It assumes a business
model. Not everyone's business model is the same. Having a different
business model does not eliminate one from having a need or from being an
ISP/LIR.

Assigning 50 /24s uses the same resources as 25 /23s, but there may be no
/23 assignments.

Further, you are building an artificial impediment for startup ISPs. 

I have read 60% to 80% of all of the emails generated by this list. My
reading has not ignored any of the subjects. I think most everyone is trying
to do the right thing. I see a lot of good back and forth discussion. But a
lot of the discussion is about operating in the DFZ, or operating the DFZ.
The devised solutions to those issues create artificial barriers to startup
and barriers to entry. ARIN and the resources that it represents does not
belong to the dues paying members of this list. ARIN and the resources that
it represents belongs to everyone in the ARIN region, including that
residential customer at the end of a cable or DSL connection. The problem is
that the residential customer is not interested in this list and the
majority of the smaller ISPs (do I even dare to call them regional) do not
have the time or resources to participate. However, everyone of them funds
the DFZ and ARIN.

As regards ARIN policies, get your head out of the DFZ. If I buy transit
through the DFZ, my upstreams will deal with it. If I join the DFZ, I will
deal with it. If it requires the equivalent of the IPv4 swamp, to run IPv6,
it will be solved.


> >> It would be a stronger and more valid 
> >> requirement if it were revised as follows: A LIR is an 
> >> organization that reassigns and/or reallocates at a minimum a 
> >> IPv4 /23 or IPv6 /44 worth of space to their own 
> downstream customers.

Michael Thomas
Mathbox
978-683-6718
1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free)