[ppml] Revision to 2008-3
jay at impulse.net
Fri Apr 4 08:14:32 EDT 2008
Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>> IMHO, the best approach to such organizations is to modify the LIR
>> definition to include them as LIRs. The technical model is more
>> ISP-like than end-user-like.
> The problem with that approach is that most, if not virtually all of these
> organizations have financial means which fall far short of the ability to
> pay ARIN subscriber-member fees.
I would think that the ARIN fees would be relatively small in comparison
with the hardware and ongoing transit, power, and operational costs
involved in maintaining such a network, but perhaps I'm out of touch
with the resourcefulness of these groups. (Yes, I'm a long-time ham
operator and indeed have cobbled together my share of begged, borrowed
and dumpster-dived gear over the years, but we're talking about a
community of 100-plus people, right?)
> I agree that we should develop policy that allows them to operate
> similar to LIRs, but, I also think that it is reasonable and worth while
> to encourage the BOT to develop a fee structure that allows them
> to make good use of that policy.
OK, so the proposal is for a financial as opposed to a technical
differentiation between community networks and conventional LIR/ISPs,
In that case, would it not make more sense to provide for a hardship or
not-for-profit fee structure (to be reviewed periodically) for such
organizations, and leave the technical definitions alone?
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
More information about the ARIN-PPML