[arin-ppml] Initial ISP Allocation Policy
Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com
Fri Jul 19 09:57:15 EDT 2013
I don't think you work for Comcast or Starbucks, so speaking for them as
to what they expect is incorrect. I do work for one of them and cannot
speak for what they expect.
Speaking only for myself and not representing my employer
On 7/18/13 11:59 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>Sent from my iPad
>On Jul 18, 2013, at 1:13 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 17, 2013, at 5:00 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 17, 2013, at 4:34 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>>>>> What about Comcast? They're in the business of providing cable
>>>>>> television service. They'll also provide you with Internet access on
>>>>>> the same coax cable with the modem they rent you.
>>>>>> ISP or end-user?
>>>>> The service is intended to be used to connect customer-owned
>>>>> equipment to the internet. As such, they are clearly in the LIR/ISP
>>>> Starbucks, Hilton, they have large sections of the operation dedicated
>>>> to connecting customer-owned equipment to the Internet.
>>> Permit me to rephraseŠ The service (in the case of Comcast) is
>>> intended to connect customer-owned networking equipment to the
>>> internet (e.g. routers, bridges, etc.). In the case of Starbucks,
>>> Hilton, etc., the expectation is that you are connecting a terminal
>>> host and not a packet forwarding device.
>> Huh? Comcast is an ISP because they give you a modem to connect
>> between the coax and your ethernet port but Starbucks isn't because
>> you connect to a wifi access point instead?
>Comcast expects most of their customers to be attaching routers, not
>computers to the modem.
>Starbucks does NOT expect you to be associating a router with their wifi.
>I thought I was pretty clear about that above, but perhaps you have
>trouble understanding the distinction I am drawing between packet
>forwarding equipment and packet terminating hosts. I thought I was clear,
>I apologize if I was not.
>>> I think getting into this level of semantic detail is a clear case of
>>>reductio ad absurdum.
>> I'll say it is!
>You went there.
>> The point here is that 21st century networks don't look like the
>> dialup+webhost ISP of 1997, nor do they look like the "our employees
>> have Netscape and Eudora" end-user of 1997. Attempts to shoehorn 21st
>> century networks into those obsolete definitions frankly come up
>> looking pretty stupid.
>That doesn't mean that one size fits all, either.
>> What we *do* see is organizations managing IP addresses in several ways:
>> 1. assigned to organization-owned infrastructure under the control of
>> the organization's employees
>> 2. assigned long-term to exclusive use by the organization's customers
>LIR/ISP in most cases.
>> 3. ephemerally assigned to exclusive use by the organization's
>> customers or users
>Could go either way, but most likely LIR/ISP if customers and End-user if
>> 4. reserved for future use
>Not sure what this means in this context, so very hard to make a
>> And we see that most organizations do a mix of all of these things,
>> not one or the other.
>Actually, I would say that most organizations fit into 1 or 2 pretty
>readily most of the time and we are seeing a growing, but still small
>number of corner cases that are more difficult to classify.
>Nonetheless, treating all organizations the same would definitely be
>either grossly unfair to those in category 1, grossly unfair to those in
>category 2, or both IMHO.
>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML