[arin-ppml] Initial ISP Allocation Policy

[Alexander, Daniel]

Owen,

Your reply sounds circular to me. Is the process of explaining resources
complicated because they are end users or ISP's, or are they complicated
because the policy requirements have made them so by creating all the
distinctions? All the issues you mention are because the policies are
different. I'm really not trying to give a cheap answer. It is a question
to the larger point of the email.

I was more curious about everyones thoughts on the high level concept.
Should the distinctions in network definitions be applied to how resources
are justified, tracked, or both?

To make a change like this would require multiple proposals. David's
initial ISP allocation question is a good place to start.

Dan Alexander
Speaking only for myself



On 7/17/13 1:13 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>> The point I'm trying to make is that the distinction between the network
>> definitions may apply to how the resource assignments should be tracked,
>> but they should be less of a factor in how the resources are obtained.
>> This becomes even more relevant in todays world where transfers will
>>soon
>> outnumber assignments/allocations, and we see organizations redefining
>> what they are in order to save on member fees, or meet different
>> qualifying requirements. I think there should be a single set of
>> parameters regarding minimum allocation size, timeframes, utilization
>> requirements, and qualifying requirements.
>
>Respectfully, I disagree.
>
>The process of explaining how one will use resources within a network
>over which one retains exclusive control can be and often is quite
>different from the process needed in order to explain how one plans to
>delegate resources to other organizations and networks outside of one's
>exclusive control.
>
>Having made applications under both policy frameworks and having been
>active in authoring policies on both sides of the spectrum, I think that
>the needs of these two different communities in terms of how they justify
>resources are, in fact, quite distinct.  I suggest this exercise for
>anyone who doubts this is the case...
>
>Imagine you are an IPv6 end-user wanting to apply under NRPM 6 for
>resources. You have a single site and are hoping to obtain a /48. Now,
>read through the LIR/ISP policy for IPv6 and imagine trying to write your
>justification under that policy. It makes no sense whatsoever.
>
>A little (very little) less nonsensical... Imagine you are an LIR/ISP
>with 3,100 serving sites located throughout the ARIN service region. Your
>largest serving site serves 40,000 customer end-sites. Now review the
>end-user policies in section 6 and imagine applying under those.
>
>Yes, there are many organizations which are hybrids of these two
>environments these days. In most cases, those organizations are better
>served by the LIR/ISP policy and should apply under those policies. That
>is one of the reasons I suggested that we mostly let organizations
>self-categorize and give staff guidance and support stating that if an
>organization does not clearly fit within the end-user definition, they
>should be treated as an LIR/ISP.
>
>> Somewhere we blurred the lines of how resources are allocated with how
>> they should be tracked and the result is the dichotomy you mentioned. I
>> also feel that this creation of classes is contrary to the stewardship
>>our
>> RIR policies should provide. As this discussion continues to develop I
>> would like to see the distinction between PI and PA allocations and
>> assignment requirements be removed. I would suggest they all be resource
>> allocations that are given to a network operator, with possibly
>>different
>> requirements as to how they should be tracked.
>
>I simply don't see how that could be workable. Could you propose policy
>language you feel would adequately implement such a structure?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Owen
>