[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-132: ISP Sub-assignments Do Not Require Specific Customer Relationships

[Jack Bates]

On 2/11/2011 3:18 PM, Charles O'Hern wrote:
> This seems to promote disconnecting the concept of LIR from ISP.
> While there are already LIRs what aren't ISPs, isn't that considered
> to be the exception? Wouldn't that in turn lead to greater
> de-aggregation?
>

Not really, I can't believe the level of deaggregation there is 
currently. entire /16's deaggregated to /24 networks? Really?


> I'm not opposed, but I am confused. Don't we want to prevent and/or
> retard de-aggregation?  Are the consequences of de-aggregation of
> less magnitude than the consequences of failing to detach the notion
> of the LIR from the notion of the ISP?
>

If a network justifies their space, then I see no harm in them using a 
network which has been provided to them. There are cases where people 
have switched ISPs and not been required to renumber. There are also 
situations such as mine, where I still hold 2x /20's from one of my 
transit feeds, and the connectivity I hold with them is minuscule. It's 
deaggregated because I run BGP with multiple peers.

It should be noted that current policy doesn't actually distinguish 
between them really. There is no connectivity required clause. An LIR 
must justify allocations the same as an ISP.

> Additionally, if so we'd have to change Draft Policy ARIN-2011-3 as
> it states that "(a)   The terms ISP and LIR are used interchangeably
> in this document and any use of either term shall be construed to
> include both meanings."  I'm assuming that "this document" to infer
> that it to applies to all sections of the NRPM.
>

That doesn't need to change. What it's saying is the policy referring to 
ISP also includes LIR and using LIR also includes ISP definitions. ie, 
it doesn't matter if you are an LIR or an ISP, these are the 
justification rules.

The policy doesn't currently mandate any type of connectivity (which is 
really the largest difference between an LIR and an ISP). 2011-3 doesn't 
change that.

The suggestion on prop-132 is to clarify the point. However, I think all 
of it misses the bigger problem. How do we handle justification, audit 
and recourse in an IPv4 depleted market?


Jack