Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Clean up definition of LIR/ISP vs. end-user (Owen DeLong)
2. Re: Clean up definition of LIR/ISP vs. end-user (Owen DeLong)
3. Re: Clean up definition of LIR/ISP vs. end-user (Owen DeLong)
4. Re: Clean up definition of LIR/ISP vs. end-user (Scott Leibrand)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:04:53 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: Randy Carpenter <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Clean up definition of LIR/ISP vs. end-user
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
There are some relatively large ISPs in the residential world that could fit
that definition. I don't think we necessarily want to allow that to make them
end-users for the following reasons:
1. It seems inequitable from a fee perspective vs. their competitors that
provide more than one address to their
customers.
2. It creates a negative incentive on IPv6 because they certainly
shouldn't be doing that when they start moving
their customers to IPv6, so they would be faced with the following
possible outcomes:
1. Substantially larger annual fees.
2. Force their IPv6 users into IPv6 address poverty
(single IPv6 address, not good.)
3. Do not deploy IPv6 or use some other IPv6 translational
technology to avoid
assigning IPv6 addresses to their customers.
As a general rule, I think 1 is sufficient reason to avoid this change.
However, even if you are not convinced by 1, I think the second set of
tradeoffs is more than adequate.
Owen
On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Randy Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> One clarification that would be nice is for an org who is providing transit
> and a single IP address to customer(s') router(s) for purposes of routing.
> That sounds "ISP" at first glance, but if the org in question does not
> actually reassign "blocks" of addresses that need to be SWIPed/WHOISed, then
> I would think they would be an end-user with regard to number policy.
>
>
> thanks,
> -Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> At ARIN 31 last week, Leslie's Policy Experience Report (slides at
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf
>> or
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PPT/monday/nobile_policy.pptx
>> ) reported that, in ARIN staff's experience, the NRPM does not adequately
>> define ISP/LIR vs. end-user. For example, by literally applying the existing
>> definitions as currently written, my employer would be neither an ISP nor
>> and end-user, because while they do not *primarily* assign address space to
>> users, neither do they *exclusively* use it in their own networks. So I
>> think those definitions need a few tweaks.
>>
>> I would propose that the primary difference between ISPs/LIRs vs. end-users,
>> for purposes of the NRPM, is whether an organization reassigns address
>> blocks to third parties. If an organization maintains full control of all of
>> the equipment on its network, and doesn't need to make any reassignments to
>> other organizations, then it can qualify as an end-user. In particular, an
>> end user organization must be able to supply a full list of all the IP
>> addresses in use on its network, and know what devices are using those
>> addresses.
>>
>> An ISP/LIR, on the other hand, should be defined by whether they delegate
>> that responsibility to another organization. In that case, they need to
>> reassign the network space via SWIP/rwhois, which makes them an LIR.
>>
>> I understand that there are other considerations, such as the expectation in
>> the security community that addresses within an ISP allocation are generally
>> controlled by third parties, whereas addresses in an end-user assignment are
>> generally controlled by the end-user organization. However, I don't believe
>> it's practical to try to draw a distinction there: rather, organizations can
>> decide for themselves whether they need to make reassignments (for that or
>> several other reasons), and that decision can drive whether they are
>> considered an ISP/LIR or end-user for purposes of ARIN policy.
>>
>> In light of the above, I would propose the following revised definitions:
>>
>> 2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR)
>> The terms Internet Service Provider (ISP) and LIR are used interchangeably in
>> this document. A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that assigns address
>> space to the users of the network services that it provides. Therefore, LIRs
>> / ISPs are organizations that reassign addresses to end users and/or
>> reallocate addresses to other ISPs/LIRs.
>>
>> 2.6. End-user
>> An end-user is an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses
>> exclusively for use in its operational networks, and does not register any
>> reassignments of that space.
>>
>> Thoughts? Should I submit this as a policy proposal?
>>
>> -Scott
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:06:40 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Clean up definition of LIR/ISP vs. end-user
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:31 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> I would propose that the primary difference between ISPs/LIRs vs. end-users,
>> for purposes of the NRPM, is whether an organization reassigns address
>> blocks to third parties. If an organization maintains full control of all
>> of the equipment on its network, and doesn't need to make any reassignments
>> to other organizations, then it can qualify as an end-user. In particular,
>> an end user organization must be able to supply a full list of all the IP
>> addresses in use on its network, and know what devices are using those
>> addresses.
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> Keep it simple:
>
> 1. There is no LIR. Only ISP. I get the distinction but it's
> needlessly confusing for everybody who isn't steeped in ARIN policy.
For policy purposes, LIR and ISP are identical. However, if you were going
to eliminate a term from policy, the term ISP would be the one to eliminate.
An ISP which fits into the ISP/LIR policy category is, by definition an LIR.
It is possible, however, for an LIR to exist which is not actually an ISP.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:15:35 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Clean up definition of LIR/ISP vs. end-user
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I was commenting on Randy's statement. I think your proposal is fine.
Owen
On Apr 29, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would agree that we don't want large residential ISPs to qualify as end
> users. Do you think my proposed definition would allow that, or just
> disagreeing with Randy's proposal with regard to single-IP transit links?
>
> -Scott
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> There are some relatively large ISPs in the residential world that could fit
> that definition. I don't think we necessarily want to allow that to make them
> end-users for the following reasons:
>
> 1. It seems inequitable from a fee perspective vs. their competitors
> that provide more than one address to their
> customers.
>
> 2. It creates a negative incentive on IPv6 because they certainly
> shouldn't be doing that when they start moving
> their customers to IPv6, so they would be faced with the following
> possible outcomes:
>
> 1. Substantially larger annual fees.
> 2. Force their IPv6 users into IPv6 address poverty
> (single IPv6 address, not good.)
> 3. Do not deploy IPv6 or use some other IPv6
> translational technology to avoid
> assigning IPv6 addresses to their customers.
>
> As a general rule, I think 1 is sufficient reason to avoid this change.
> However, even if you are not convinced by 1, I think the second set of
> tradeoffs is more than adequate.
>
> Owen
>
> On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Randy Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > One clarification that would be nice is for an org who is providing transit
> > and a single IP address to customer(s') router(s) for purposes of routing.
> > That sounds "ISP" at first glance, but if the org in question does not
> > actually reassign "blocks" of addresses that need to be SWIPed/WHOISed,
> > then I would think they would be an end-user with regard to number policy.
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> > -Randy
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> At ARIN 31 last week, Leslie's Policy Experience Report (slides at
> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf
> >> or
> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PPT/monday/nobile_policy.pptx
> >> ) reported that, in ARIN staff's experience, the NRPM does not adequately
> >> define ISP/LIR vs. end-user. For example, by literally applying the
> >> existing
> >> definitions as currently written, my employer would be neither an ISP nor
> >> and end-user, because while they do not *primarily* assign address space to
> >> users, neither do they *exclusively* use it in their own networks. So I
> >> think those definitions need a few tweaks.
> >>
> >> I would propose that the primary difference between ISPs/LIRs vs.
> >> end-users,
> >> for purposes of the NRPM, is whether an organization reassigns address
> >> blocks to third parties. If an organization maintains full control of all
> >> of
> >> the equipment on its network, and doesn't need to make any reassignments to
> >> other organizations, then it can qualify as an end-user. In particular, an
> >> end user organization must be able to supply a full list of all the IP
> >> addresses in use on its network, and know what devices are using those
> >> addresses.
> >>
> >> An ISP/LIR, on the other hand, should be defined by whether they delegate
> >> that responsibility to another organization. In that case, they need to
> >> reassign the network space via SWIP/rwhois, which makes them an LIR.
> >>
> >> I understand that there are other considerations, such as the expectation
> >> in
> >> the security community that addresses within an ISP allocation are
> >> generally
> >> controlled by third parties, whereas addresses in an end-user assignment
> >> are
> >> generally controlled by the end-user organization. However, I don't believe
> >> it's practical to try to draw a distinction there: rather, organizations
> >> can
> >> decide for themselves whether they need to make reassignments (for that or
> >> several other reasons), and that decision can drive whether they are
> >> considered an ISP/LIR or end-user for purposes of ARIN policy.
> >>
> >> In light of the above, I would propose the following revised definitions:
> >>
> >> 2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR)
> >> The terms Internet Service Provider (ISP) and LIR are used interchangeably
> >> in
> >> this document. A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that assigns
> >> address
> >> space to the users of the network services that it provides. Therefore,
> >> LIRs
> >> / ISPs are organizations that reassign addresses to end users and/or
> >> reallocate addresses to other ISPs/LIRs.
> >>
> >> 2.6. End-user
> >> An end-user is an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses
> >> exclusively for use in its operational networks, and does not register any
> >> reassignments of that space.
> >>
> >> Thoughts? Should I submit this as a policy proposal?
> >>
> >> -Scott
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PPML
> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130429/7a801dd2/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:10:43 -0700
From: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
To: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Clean up definition of LIR/ISP vs. end-user
Message-ID:
<cagkmwz6usrempgb8ntx2cjnua0xmx8pljgfpkqqakovwn_8...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
I would agree that we don't want large residential ISPs to qualify as end
users. Do you think my proposed definition would allow that, or just
disagreeing with Randy's proposal with regard to single-IP transit links?
-Scott
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> There are some relatively large ISPs in the residential world that could
> fit that definition. I don't think we necessarily want to allow that to
> make them end-users for the following reasons:
>
> 1. It seems inequitable from a fee perspective vs. their competitors
> that provide more than one address to their
> customers.
>
> 2. It creates a negative incentive on IPv6 because they certainly
> shouldn't be doing that when they start moving
> their customers to IPv6, so they would be faced with the following
> possible outcomes:
>
> 1. Substantially larger annual fees.
> 2. Force their IPv6 users into IPv6 address poverty
> (single IPv6 address, not good.)
> 3. Do not deploy IPv6 or use some other IPv6
> translational technology to avoid
> assigning IPv6 addresses to their customers.
>
> As a general rule, I think 1 is sufficient reason to avoid this change.
> However, even if you are not convinced by 1, I think the second set of
> tradeoffs is more than adequate.
>
> Owen
>
> On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Randy Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > One clarification that would be nice is for an org who is providing
> transit and a single IP address to customer(s') router(s) for purposes of
> routing. That sounds "ISP" at first glance, but if the org in question does
> not actually reassign "blocks" of addresses that need to be SWIPed/WHOISed,
> then I would think they would be an end-user with regard to number policy.
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> > -Randy
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> At ARIN 31 last week, Leslie's Policy Experience Report (slides at
> >>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf
> >> or
> >>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PPT/monday/nobile_policy.pptx
> >> ) reported that, in ARIN staff's experience, the NRPM does not
> adequately
> >> define ISP/LIR vs. end-user. For example, by literally applying the
> existing
> >> definitions as currently written, my employer would be neither an ISP
> nor
> >> and end-user, because while they do not *primarily* assign address
> space to
> >> users, neither do they *exclusively* use it in their own networks. So I
> >> think those definitions need a few tweaks.
> >>
> >> I would propose that the primary difference between ISPs/LIRs vs.
> end-users,
> >> for purposes of the NRPM, is whether an organization reassigns address
> >> blocks to third parties. If an organization maintains full control of
> all of
> >> the equipment on its network, and doesn't need to make any
> reassignments to
> >> other organizations, then it can qualify as an end-user. In particular,
> an
> >> end user organization must be able to supply a full list of all the IP
> >> addresses in use on its network, and know what devices are using those
> >> addresses.
> >>
> >> An ISP/LIR, on the other hand, should be defined by whether they
> delegate
> >> that responsibility to another organization. In that case, they need to
> >> reassign the network space via SWIP/rwhois, which makes them an LIR.
> >>
> >> I understand that there are other considerations, such as the
> expectation in
> >> the security community that addresses within an ISP allocation are
> generally
> >> controlled by third parties, whereas addresses in an end-user
> assignment are
> >> generally controlled by the end-user organization. However, I don't
> believe
> >> it's practical to try to draw a distinction there: rather,
> organizations can
> >> decide for themselves whether they need to make reassignments (for that
> or
> >> several other reasons), and that decision can drive whether they are
> >> considered an ISP/LIR or end-user for purposes of ARIN policy.
> >>
> >> In light of the above, I would propose the following revised
> definitions:
> >>
> >> 2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR)
> >> The terms Internet Service Provider (ISP) and LIR are used
> interchangeably in
> >> this document. A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that assigns
> address
> >> space to the users of the network services that it provides. Therefore,
> LIRs
> >> / ISPs are organizations that reassign addresses to end users and/or
> >> reallocate addresses to other ISPs/LIRs.
> >>
> >> 2.6. End-user
> >> An end-user is an organization receiving assignments of IP addresses
> >> exclusively for use in its operational networks, and does not register
> any
> >> reassignments of that space.
> >>
> >> Thoughts? Should I submit this as a policy proposal?
> >>
> >> -Scott
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PPML
> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130429/43bc96c0/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 94, Issue 43
*****************************************
