[arin-ppml] Initial ISP Allocation Policy

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 19, 2013, at 9:27 AM, "Alexander, Daniel" <Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com> wrote:

> Owen,
> 
> 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.

In general, I would agree with you.

In this specific case, I'll argue that I have relatively direct knowledge…

1.	I am a Comcast customer and it has been made very clear to me through multiple interactions
	with them that my attaching a router and having a network infrastructure within my premises
	attached to their service is not a surprise to them and well within their expectations.

2.	If you believe I am wrong about Starbucks, I suggest this experiment (yes, I have tried this):

	1.	Bring several devices and a router with you to Starbucks.
	2.	Connect the router to the Starbucks Wifi and use it to run a LAN for the other devices
		treating the Starbucks wifi as an upstream connection.

	In each and every case where I have conducted this experiment, Starbucks has chosen to make
	it clear to me that this is an unexpected and unwelcome use of their network.

So… While I don't work for either one of them, both have chosen to communicate their expectations to me during my actual use of their services and I have chosen to repeat what was communicated to me here.

Owen

> 
> -Dan Alexander
> 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
>>>>>> realm.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>> 
>> End-user.
>> 
>>> 2. assigned long-term to exclusive use by the organization's customers
>>> or users
>> 
>> 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
>> users.
>> 
>>> 4. reserved for future use
>> 
>> Not sure what this means in this context, so very hard to make a
>> meaningful reply.
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> 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:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.