[arin-ppml] Downstreams, needs less than /24 and PI availability

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > [kjk] This sounds to me like ARIN trying to govern business models for
>> > member entities and I think it is a bad idea.  Speaking as an ISP if my
>>
>> Well, if they didnt already do this, I would agree with you for the most
>> part.
> [kjk] If they already do this then why the need for regulation?  Isn't this
> all part of how ISP's do business?  Are you suggestion that ARIN start
> operating as a regulatory body for ISP business practices?

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that ARIN policy doesn't
impact ISP or end user business models?

>> > customers need PA space I am more than happy to provide it for them at a
>> > nominal cost.  I am sure this is the case at most if not all ISP's.  I
>> > haven't heard of too many ISP's that turn down business customers are
>> > willing to pay for. The customer is of course always free to seek a
>> > different ISP.
>>
>> Economic power comes into play in your thinking in that some networks
>> have the economic power to do what they please with respect to choice.
>> Others, not so much. In that case, this kind of "practice" is not
>> typically in anyones interest and all it seems to do is throw matches
>> on the common burning up a slot and wasting "significant" resources
>> that could be used to help foster transition.

> [kjk] Again, if an ISP does not offer what a customer needs then the
> customer is free to go to a different ISP.  I really do not want to see ARIN
> get in to the practice of trying to control ISP business models.  That would
> just be wrong on many levels.


How should a network meet their utilization requirements and how
should ARIN foster aggregation per "RFC 2050" and "ICP-2" then? If I
have to use a /24 for a miniscule amount of addressing needs what's my
relief valve in policy then? GTL?

Best,

-M<