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

Kevin Kargel kkargel at polartel.com
Fri Oct 7 13:46:03 EDT 2011

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:hannigan at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 12:19 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel
> Cc: Benson Schliesser; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Downstreams, needs less than /24 and PI
> availability
> 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?

[kjk] I am saying that ARIN if a *registrar*. See the "R" in ARIN. ARIN has
no business telling ISP's or other providers what services they are required
to offer to customers. What ARIN does is *register* address space to

ARIN does not and should not be telling ISP's they need to provide email
addresses or broadband or file sharing or static IP's or dynamic IP's or NAT
or filtered IP or unfiltered IP or anything else like that to customers,
even if these would be good things.

If you want a regulatory rule defining ISP business practices the proper
place to get it done in the US would be in the FCC or possibly the FTC.
Good luck with that.

> >> > 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
> > 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?
[kjk] The network should apply to their provider for PA space.  If the
provider won't give it to them they should get a new provider.  
If you are my customer and you need a /30 or a /29 of space all you need to
do is request it and agree to pay the associated fees and I will set you up.
The subnet will even be advertised in BGP, albeit as part of an aggregate.

There is a cost involved in providing a static subnet to a customer and
routing that and maintaining DNS for it.  It is right and good that the ISP
should get some reasonable return for providing that product.  

Because we have created a market for IP space those IP's now have a monetary
value.  As the market for that value fluctuates so will the cost to the


> Best,
> -M<
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4935 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111007/258ff2a8/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list