[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-182 Update Residential Customer Definition to not exclude wireless as Residential Service
cb.list6 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 9 00:49:51 EDT 2012
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/2/12, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Can you explain how / why it is different? There is demand and there
>> is capacity. From an IP addressing perspective, aggregation happens
> Because mobile devices are not attached to a service area, OR a
Yes they are attached to a service area. The mobility session is
anchored the relevant geographic region. Different networks have
different practices. When I am in Seattle, i anchor in Seattle and
get addresses that aggregate to Seattle. Same when i am in SFO, LAX,
DFW, ATL, ...
> residence. With a fixed service, there is basically 1 service per
> residence. With wireless mobile devices, if an end user wishes,
1 IP per mobile device, no difference.
> they can buy 5 IP-enabled mobile devices relatively inexpensively,
I can get 5 DSL or Cable drops to my house. so what? Price for
service and CPE is about the same as landline service. You can get
internet access for $60 a month with or without wires, and that access
requires an IP address.
> and carry their devices anywhere -- including places in completely
> different service areas.
Not really. The IP addresses are bound to geographic regions,
generally speaking. There is theoretical case that if you attach in
Seattle you can keep the same IP address driving all the way to LAX,
but that would never happen in reality. If you lose coverage, power
cycle ... , you detach, re-attach, and that re-attach will happen in
the closest anchor point.
> There can be places that have zero residences, but tens of thousands of users.
Yep. They all need IP addresses just the same.
> The "service area" based on counting residences concept, just doesn't
Count residences.... Is that part of ARIN policy?
> work right, if you have a service that isn't tied to residences.
> The mobility itself, rather than the interconnection technology, is a
> fundamental difference.
>> in mobile networks at the metro area (NFL city). People in the same
>> metro are generally managed in the same capacity pool.
> Sure, but the number of residences in the metro area, does not indicate how many
> subscribers there will be present in the metro area at any given point in time.
....its a fair guess. And ARIN policy is based on real usages that
one can demonstrate. I am not asking for any special treatment, i am
just saying person broadband is personal broadband regardless of
access type or location.
> It is a more reasonable policy that they have to show 80% actual
> utilization of their pools,
> than that they have to show some lower number, and that they meet
> any kind of criteria based on a number of "residences" that a mobile
> service is not actually tied to.
I humbly disagree with your objections and understandings. I believe
the policy should move forward. Broadband is broadband. IP devices
are IP devices.
Wires and place of usage should not matter. I believe the policy
writers choose the word "residential" when they really meant to say
More information about the ARIN-PPML