Request for CLEW Input

[Kim Hubbard]

Howard,

You are absolutely right that there needs to be more documentation for ISPs
to share with their customers regarding IP allocation policy.  There is
plenty of documentation from the RIR to ISP perspective but very little that
helps the end-user.  This was one of the initial goals of CLEW when it was
first created.   I believe that any documentation of this kind must include
the involvement of some ARIN member ISPs.  Perhaps one goal of the CLEW WG
meeting could be to create a committee made up of a few ISPs and ARIN staff
to begin working on this very important project.

Regards,

Kim Hubbard

----- Original Message -----
From: Howard C. Berkowitz <hcb at clark.net>
To: <richardj at arin.net>
Cc: <clew at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 9:39 AM
Subject: RE: Request for CLEW Input


> >Hello Howard,
> >
> >>  In one of my presentations to NANOG last week, the vast majority of
> >>  questions related to obtaining and justifying address space. In
> >>  particular, North American ISPs complained about how their requests
> >>  for their customers to justify assignments and usage were resented,
> >
> >One of our duties as a RIR is to ensure the IP address space we
> >allocate is justified and that it is efficiently utilized.  This
> >is the practice of all three RIRs.
> >
> >>  and how competitors' sales people often used that as a wedge "we'll
> >>  give you a /24, or whatever, if you change your service to us.  We
> >>  won't hassle you with all the paperwork the incumbent is demanding."
> >
> >ARIN has no control over the tactics that may be used by the sales
> >forces of some ISPs, but we do ensure requests submitted to ARIN for
> >IP address space are all reviewed in an equal manner.  If an ISP has
> >deployed a sales tactic like this it should show up during their
> >review for additional IP address space from ARIN.
>
>
> I agree, Richard. This is the way it should work.  But right now,
> there isn't any good way for the ISP playing nicely to show
> independent, readable documentation to his customer to say that the
> ISP _can't_ make a practice of just handing out address space.
>
> If you, as a provider, do tell some customers that inappropriate
> assignments will show up in their future reviews, you are apt to get
> a response of "so what? I need address space now. It's your problem
> in the future; handle it." I've run across enterprises that have a
> mentality of "if you have space in your allocation, give it to us NOW
> if you want our business."  And we have sales people that will do
> just that, because the next review period is later than the next
> computation of their sales commissions.
>
> >
> >>  This seems to be far less of a problem in Europe, and I'm beginning
> >>  to think the RIPE NCC model of LIR's (as distinct from generic
> >>  members) is part of the solution.  A LIR can present itself as a
> >>  steward of address space, much as a CPA or physician is expected to
> >>  exercise independent professional integrity.
> >
> >I believe there is no difference between an ISP who is a member
> >in the ARIN region and a LIR in the RIPE NCC who is a member in
> >regard to stewardship of IP address space.
>
>  From a process design standpoint, I am in complete agreement.  From a
> customer perception standpoint, I don't think the information to
> justify this is in the minds of the end users.
>
> The problem isn't with the ARIN staff.  Indeed, there is, I believe a
> fair bit of unjustified hostility toward ARIN, when direct allocation
> requests (or additional allocation requests) are denied due to
> inadequate justification.
>