[arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8
David.Huberman at microsoft.com
Sun Dec 6 22:32:38 EST 2015
So I thought Jose’s email was very spot on.
But I question the relevance of ANY distinction between ISP and End-user in 2016. In what way does the operator community benefit from a difference in rules (especially wrt Whois)? If we put aside the ARIN billing issue, and look at it purely from an inter-operator perspective, why is it good that ARIN policy and procedures differentiate between ISPs and End-users?
David R Huberman
Principal, Global IP Addressing
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2015 3:42 PM
To: Jose R. de la Cruz III <jrdelacruz at acm.org>
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8
Not speaking for John, but I don’t believe that would help because I believe that anything which
does not meet the definition of an “end user” is de fact an ISP.
Creating a clear definition of “ISP” would likely, instead, create a new category of organizations
which fit neither defined category and suddenly find themselves without any way to interact with
ARIN. I would not consider that to be an improvement.
It may be that adding a statement to policy that any organization which does not meet the strict
definition of “End User” is therefore considered an ISP for policy purposes.
On Dec 6, 2015, at 13:03 , Jose R. de la Cruz III <jrdelacruz at acm.org<mailto:jrdelacruz at acm.org>> wrote:
Thanks for the additional info. It looks like the problem brought forth in the referenced document was never completely solved. Because an end user is defined as "an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses exclusively for use in its operational networks.", it is my opinion that the "exclusively" part of the definition maybe the one creating some problems. In the "large enterprises which may provide services to many entities of various degrees of affiliation" example, the exclusively part of the definition should not apply. The question is, are these organizations actively involved in the reassigning that IP space to their customers?
Although no formal definition for ISP is included in the policy manual, an ISP does not fit into the end user definition. Would a definition for ISP provide a clear guidance in thesubject? How should hosting/cloud/cdn providers be categorized?
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:43 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
On Dec 4, 2015, at 6:48 AM, Jose R. de la Cruz III <jrdelacruz at acm.org<mailto:jrdelacruz at acm.org>> wrote:
4. Should End-Users who want to be able to re-assign records simply be required to become ISPs?
--->No. Why should they?
5. Should the ISP/End-User distinction be eliminated (which is a bigger discussion outside the scope of the current problem statement)?
---> No. They are different type of business entities and should be serviced according to their needs.
I have no comment either way regarding the particular policy proposal under
discussion, but would like to provide some background that may aid in further
consideration of the question:
- The distinction between “end-user” and “ISP” is very clear in many cases,
but not universally. Examples where it is less clear include university and
college systems, large enterprises which may provide services to many
entities of various degrees of affiliation (wholly-owned, partially-owned,
joint entity, business partner), hosting/cloud/cdn providers (where the line
between infrastructure and customer can be quite blurry at times), etc.
- The desire to between ISP and End-User (or visa-versa) may be driven
by fee or policy motivations, but we have seen an increase in end-users
who wish to re-assign blocks in order to have more accurate information
in the database regarding the actual address usage, particularly with
respect to their geolocation data.
Today ARIN tries to work with ISPs and end-users who wish to change
their categorization, but understandly we lack clear guidance for what
is becoming an increasingly blurry distinction. For additional context,
refer to the ARIN 31 Policy Experience Report (where this issue was
raised) - https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf
President and CEO
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML