[arin-ppml] Residential Customers

Cameron Byrne cb.list6 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 20 15:03:12 EDT 2012

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Scott Leibrand
<scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Chris Grundemann
>> <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Scott Leibrand
>> >> <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> I would say yes, a natural person qualifies as a residential customer.
>> >>> If ARIN interprets the policy differently, we can of course make the policy
>> >>> more explicit.
>> >>>
>> >>> Scott
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yes, ARIN has informed me that since the service is not to PHYSICAL
>> >> residence, it does not apply.
>> >>
>> >> This seemed strange to me, not sure why IP policy would apply to OSI
>> >> Layer 1 media type.  Is an official wording change required or just
>> >> guidance to the ARIN staff?
>> >
>> > In what context did they say this? What specifically are we talking
>> > about (in what way do you need "residential customer" to apply)?
>> >
>> Very specifically, i was told that i must show specifically 80% active
>> usage of all assigned addresses.
>> I would like to move the bar from 80% demonstrated active use to 50%
>> use as defined here in NRPM
>> The technical issues that, i assume, prompted policy in  NRPM
>>  applies the same way to mobile networks as it does to
>> landline, thus the policy should apply the same when requesting
>> resources and justifying use.
> I think the simplest change that would accomplish this would be to add "or
> mobile" to the second paragraph of  It would then read:
> Using SWIP or RWhois, residential or mobile access ISPs must show that they
> have reassigned at least 80% of their current address space, with a 50 to
> 80% utilization rate, in order to request additional addresses.
> I don't think the first paragraph needs to change, because the "Initial
> allocations are based on total number of homes that could purchase the
> service in a given market area" text would not seem to apply to mobile
> technology.
> Is that what you're looking for?  If so, feel free to submit it as a
> proposal to policy at arin.net.  I'll be happy to assist in any way I can.
> I'm sure such a change will prompt lots of discussion, and I think a
> concrete policy proposal will help frame that discussion.
> -Scott

My hope is that the wording does not have to change.

I believe the "spirit" of the policy is that a "consumer service" =
"residential service" = "mobile service".  The main point being that
an single ARIN IP address is dynamically allocated to a user for
personal connectivity.

As others have mentioned, can staff guidance be enough?  If so, how
does staff get guidance?


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list