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

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Fri Feb 11 17:00:58 EST 2011

Jack, care to elaborate as to why? +1 is meaningless since all that
was presented by the previous poster appears to be a straw man.

Can you explain 'harm'?



On 2/11/11, Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list