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

[Jack Bates]

Umm, I think you replied to the wrong email. :)

The +1 concerning the other prop was actually summed up nicely in 
another email Owen wrote right before the one I +1'd.


Jack

On 2/11/2011 4:00 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> 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'?
>
> Best,
>
> -M<
>
>
> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> 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.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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.