[arin-ppml] Initial ISP Allocation Policy

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Thu Jul 18 10:58:01 EDT 2013

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:36 AM, David Huberman
<David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> - A section on obtaining additional blocks, which still outlines the 80% rule.
> - We would have to figure out what to do with the requirement to SWIP,
> as the requirement is predicated on the classification of "ISP" actually
> existing (which it would not).  That might need a working group to reconcile.

Hi David,

If you want to get there incrementally (which IMHO is the only way you
might get there), start here. Convert the ISP and end-user specific
reporting requirements into address use classes which apply across
both registrant types.

Start that effort by enumerating the different ways in which addresses
are used. Then match them up to what kind of reporting we expect for
those uses and why we want that reporting.


Use type: assignment to a customer
Desired reporting: SWIP or RWHOIS of address range matched to customer identity
Rationale: transparency and accountability.

Use type: employee DHCP pool
Desired reporting: host count
Rationale: We don't need more than a rough host count to evaluate
whether you're making efficient use of IP addresses. We know how big
your company is so we'll know if your host count is unreasonable.
Which employees, which company location, we don't need to know that to
authenticate the use.

Use type: ephemeral customer pool
Desired reporting: 95th percentile use
Rationale: We don't need to know each customer temporarily holding an
IP address but it's important that you not overfill your DHCP pools
while someone else starves for addresses. Some of you have allowed
vendors to saddle you with tech that manages addresses badly. This is
not OK.

Use type: long hold customer pool
Desired reporting: If the customer holds the same DHCP address for a
year, is there a difference between that and explicitly assigning the

etc. etc.

Next step after that is to merge these use types into general
categories based on the desired reporting. Then apply to both types of
organizations (ISP and end-user) and retire the org type specific

With reporting equalized, the next step is to equalize the
qualification criteria based on the reporting.

Once qualifications and reporting are equalized, it falls on the ARIN
board to equalize the fee schedule.

And then finally we do away with the distinction between ISP and
end-user altogether.

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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list