[arin-ppml] Sections 6.5.1.a and 6.5.1.b - More section 6 Potential simplifications from the NRPM Working Group

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 18:11 John Santos <john at egh.com> wrote:

> I agree with Dale (I think). ISPs do a lot more than just register
> Internet
> addresses, but their interaction with ARIN and the NRPM is under their
> function
> as an Internet Registry (allocating and registering addresses for their
> customers), so they are a special case of LIR.  If the term LIR is used
> most
> commonly by other regions and their definition of LIR is similar to
> ARIN's, then
> I think "LIR" should be used in the NRPM, even if it requires more
> single-point
> changes.
>

ISPs assign “to” their customers, but semantics.


> If everyone agrees that the terms ISP and LIR, as used in the NRPM, are
> equivalent, then substituting one for the other is a purely editorial
> change,
> not a policy change.
>

Staff or engineering also seems to equate LIR with ISP and vice versa. It’s
noted on the web tool when requesting v4 or v6 resources as “LIR/ISP”

In order for it not to be perceived as a policy change ISP seems to be the
right term. On a per ARIN region per ASN basis (individual network vs.
address holdings volume implying international) I believe most network
operators in North America don’t use the LIR acronym at all. If it wasn’t a
cultural change I’d agree with you re: the terms being the same. However,
it’s more confusing to redact ISP than LIR. When examining section 10,
there are  also no conflicts since neither term is used. Other than global
policy, I don’t think it’s terrible necessary to be “similar” to the other
regions. This particular issue doesn’t seem that important.

I’m +1 removing LIR.

Warm regards,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20231205/d2ec9125/attachment.htm>