ARIN Justified...

[Bill Van Emburg]

Clayton Lambert wrote:
> 
> agreed.
> 
> All aspects should be looked at.
> 
> In the modified version of the policy that I am pushing for, the software
> that you use for billing could be considered a technical reason for
> justification...And if you requested IP space for this reason to me, and I
> denied the request, you should have the right to have the request escalated
> to ARIN for a decision...This would also protect the ISP from difficulties
> with further IP allocation requests from ARIN (if auditing by ARIN included
> the disputed assignment in their review).
> 

I am VERY glad to hear you say this, and I would agree.  I was confused,
as you have often stated things such as:
----------------------------------
Subject: RE: ARIN Justified...
   Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:29:21 -0800
   From: "Clayton Lambert" <Clay at exodus.net>
     To: <bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com>,
	 "'Mark Strother'" <marks at paconline.net>
    CC:  "'Virtual IP List'" <vwp at arin.net>

This hits the heart of this particular aspect of the issue:

ARIN IP policy should not be restricted due to vendor specific
limitations.
protocol limitations are a different story, but just because a
short-sited
vendor takes an easy path to market, for his product or service, ARIN
should
not conform a policy around his product limitation.

-clay
-------------------------------
Your reference to "vendor specific limitations" not being allowable
exceptions had me thinking of circumstances such as Mr. Elliott's.

As you stated at the top of the first message, his situation would
warrant an exception.
-- 

				     -- Bill Van Emburg
				     	Quadrix Solutions, Inc.
Phone: 732-235-2335, x206		(mailto:bve at quadrix.com)
Fax:   732-235-2336			(http://quadrix.com)
		The eBusiness Solutions Company


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vwp at arin.net [mailto:owner-vwp at arin.net]On Behalf Of Stephen
> Elliott
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 1:49 PM
> To: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com; Virtual IP List
> Subject: Re: ARIN Justified...
> 
> Pulling IP utilization is a protocol layer function, going in and
> pulling out the url is a application layer function.  Most billing
> applications would have to be completely rewritten and replaced.  In
> addition the processing power required and the latency would increase
> dramatically if this were required.  I do not suggest that these
> obstacles are insurmountable, just that they exist and should not be
> overlooked.
> -Stephen
> 
> bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Stephen is right. For us the biggest issue is billing. We collect
> billing
> > > data using NetFlow and export the data to our accounting and billing
> > > software based on IP address.
> > >
> > > It would take a lot of work/money to migrate from this system.
> > >
> > > Mark Strother
> > > President, Pacific Online
> > > Phone: (604) 638-6010
> > > Fax: (604) 638-6020
> > > Toll Free: 1-877-503-9870
> >
> >         So... you are depending on a vendor supplied system?
> >         When (not if) NetFlow changes and/or you migrate to
> >         a vendor that does not support NetFlow, you expect
> >         your systems to continue to work?
> >
> > --bill
> 
> --
> Stephen Elliott                 Harrison & Troxell
> Systems & Networking Manager    2 Faneuil Hall Marketplace
> Systems & Networking Group      Boston, Ma 02109
> (617)227-0494 Phone             (617)720-3918 Fax