[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-182 Update Residential Customer Definition to not exclude wireless as Residential Service

[Cameron Byrne]

Bill,

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:59 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>> What's the motivation behind removing "place of residence?"
>>
>> Your smartphone, tablet, LTE / WiFi HotSpot provide the same service
>> and require the same number of IP addresses regardless if you are at
>> your house, a park, Grandma' House, a hospital ....
>>
>> I believe the Policy should reflect that a fixed geographic location,
>> "place of residence" and an associated physical wire, is irrelevant
>> with regards to assigning an address to for a consumer service.  Yet,
>> the wording in the Policy, and interpretation of the Policy, make this
>> a challenge for wireless services to people (not businesses).
>>
>> The principle is the same, there is no change to that.  But, the
>> wording of 2.13 needs to be updated to account for the progress and
>> growth made in wireless/mobile internet access.
>
> Hi Cameron,
>
> I think I need some more convincing on that one. You're talking about
> a whole different class of use here: mobile users, not home users. Why
> should a mobile user with a /29 on his smartphone or tablet be
> exempted from ARIN reporting? Why isn't that an unusual and

There is no user that i know of that has a /29 of ARIN space on their
Smartphone or Tablet.  AFAIK, the only allocation policy  that is in
place by any mainstream wireless operator is one IPv4 per mobile
device.

> consumptive kind of use of scarce IPv4 addresses that we as a
> community want to monitor closely?
>

The issue that i bring is that there is no difference between mobile
and wireline internet access.

A router with an LTE uplink should not be treated different from a
router with a DSL uplink for the for provisioning Internet service to
consumers / real people.

A PC plugged into a cable modem should not be treated any different,
from any aspect of policy, from tablet attached to an HSPA+
connection.

Both are services that provide access to the internet to real people.
Both can render webpages.  Both require an IP address.  But, they are
treated differently in the Policy because one is wireline and the
other is not. I believe this difference is an artifact of
unfortunately narrow wording and strict interpretation of the wording
by ARIN staff, so it should change to more clearly reflect facts.  I
believe that fact is that "access mode", wires, no wires, ... should
not impact policy of a definition of efficient use.

My hope is that this policy will make it so that a node is a node,
regardless of access media.  Today, access media dictates who is and
who is not a residential user.

CB
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004