[arin-ppml] New Policy Proposal
hannigan at gmail.com
Wed Aug 15 16:06:19 EDT 2012
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> At this time, I'm going in favor of advancing this proposal.
That should read "not in favor". Sorry, spell check doesn't do it all.
> I support the concept, but the ARIN region contains multiple
> jurisdictions and has a requirement to attempt to balance policy for
> fairness across all of them. Achieving this balance by insuring that
> utilization requirements are applied broadly vs. narrowly is entirely
> I would instead suggest that we address utilization holistically by
> either lowering the threshold to 50% across the board or waiving them
> altogether for transfers. But we're re-arranging the deck chairs as
> the ship is rolling over at this point.
> This proposal also brings to mind the comments that Cameron Byrne made
> recently related to the definition of wireless access services e.g.
> residential or commercial and their implications on utilization and
> transfer. His comments should also be considered and addressed as part
> of a much more generalized edit of this proposal. If we are going to
> address utilization, let's do it holistically.
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> This is essentially a case of providers that have to allocate addresses in much the same way as cable ISPs covered under 18.104.22.168.3, but which may not be able to meet the 50% across-the-board requirement.
>> Essentially, this isn't about a blank check, it's about addressing a squeeze created between the regulators (CRTC) and the ability of the incumbent Cable carriers to control the underlying network topology, the competitive TPIA is required to deploy addresses which may not meet current utilization requirements depending on the percentage of market they capture.
>> As I understand it, if you have 3 competing companies in a market, for example, you are virtually guaranteed that at least 2 of them cannot meet the 50% utilization requirement.
>> On Jul 28, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>>> On 7/27/12, Peter Rocca <rocca at start.ca> wrote:
>>> This situation should fall under 22.214.171.124.2; allocations for
>>> downstream ISPs, without additional special rules. I am not in favor
>>> of giving some ISPs a blank check on utilization, by automatically
>>> considering their usage justified, as soon as they designated IPs for
>>> their equipment.
>>> As an LIR / registration authority creating sub-delegations from ARIN
>>> allocated resources, the "TPIA" provider (or whatever it's called)
>>> should be required to maintain their sub-delegations contact records,
>>> and maintain the documentation of usage, and that the subdelegations
>>> are efficiently used, based on a utilization criterion in compliance
>>> with policy, as any other LIR has to do.
>>>> The high-level overview is that the allocation is routed to the TPIA
>>>> provider who then carves it up into smaller blocks and routes them to
>>>> different 'serving areas' which are geographical groupings of CMTS's. Those
>>>> serving areas then have smaller DHCP pools (generally /27's or /28's)
>>>> assigned at the node level. End-users are assigned IP's from the DHCP of the
>>>> node they are served by. Once the space is provided to the TPIA provider the
>>>> ISP no longer has control over the routing, renumbering or specific
>>>> assignments within the TPIA network.
>>> 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:
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML