Thus spake John Sweeting ([email protected]) on Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 07:11:54PM +0000: > Hello list, > > ARIN would like to call attention to slides 11 – 13 of the Policy > Implementation and Experience Report presented at ARIN 53 in Barbados > regarding LIR versus ISP. > > https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/ARIN53/materials/monday/arin53_policyimplementation.pdf > > ARIN staff is fine with whichever terminology the community prefers to use, > but at present considers ISPs to be organizations that provide some form of > IP connectivity services and not just address management services. If ISP is > replaced with LIR, there will be a change in policy unless care is taken > (e.g. section 4 regarding issuance of number resources) to make clear the > requirement that organizations may only obtain additional resources from ARIN > based on their documented need to use in the provisioning of IP connectivity > services.
Thanks, John for that reminder from ARIN 53. I personally believe that while it would be some work, it could be a welcome clarification in the NPRM where justifications specifically require a burden of physical presence or existence. I think the current blurring of terminology between LIR and ISP leaves parts of policy ambiguous (in particular to a lay person, as ARIN staff are interpreting the intent correctly) as to where the physical existence test does and does not apply. So I think there is an opportunity to clarify that aspect. A recent discussion of micro-allocations for exchange points also comes to my mind as similarly struggling with this physical (vs virtual) aspect. Dale > From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> on behalf of Tyler O'Meara via > ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, June 20, 2024 at 1:13 PM > To: Dale W. Carder <[email protected]>, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> > Cc: PPML <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Feedback Request: Policy ARIN-2024-6: 6.5.1a > Definition Update > I agree that we should work toward replacing all instances of "ISP" with "LIR" > in the entirety of the NRPM, and then retire 6.5.1a. However, my understanding > was that for IPv4, ARIN staff considered only LIRs that have a physical > network > of some kind to be ISPs, and that therefore the 2 terms are not yet treated > identically. > > If my understanding is correct, I would propose we replace ISP with LIR > everywhere, and just add a requirement to 4.1.8 that the requesting LIR have a > physical network presence. > > Tyler > > > On Thu, 2024-06-20 at 11:33 -0500, Dale W. Carder wrote: > > Thus spake Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML ([email protected]) on Thu, Jun 20, > > 2024 > > at 02:36:02AM -0700: > > > This is unfinished cleanup… The correct solution (IMNSHO) is to eliminate > > > the term ISP from the NRPM and replace all occurrences with LIR. > > > > > > There’s really no place in the NRPM where ISP (or equivalent) occurs that > > > would not be better served for policy purposes by being replaced with LIR. > > > > I strongly agree with these points, and also point out that LIR also better > > aligns with usage in IETF and IANA. > > > > Dale > > > > > > On Jun 19, 2024, at 20:51, Douglas Camin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill – > > > > > > > > I made a mistake in my earlier email – LIRs and ISPs *are* generally > > > > interchangeable terms. I was confusing it with End Users. Apologies. > > > > Notably, ARIN staff wrote a helpful blog post earlier last year pointing > > > > out that LIR and ISP is used interchangeably under the NRPM. > > > > > > > > I’ll rephrase my earlier response: > > > > > > > > The policy proposal as I see it is looking to add clarity to the > > > > existing > > > > text. Section 6.5 as a whole uses the terms ISP and LIR at different > > > > points. 6.5.1a appears to be there to ensure a reader knows they have > > > > the > > > > same meaning but used the broader term “document” rather than “section” > > > > to > > > > indicate the applicability. As a subsection of Section 6.5, a statement > > > > that it applies to the “Section” should reasonably indicate the rest of > > > > the section it is included in, and no other sections of the document. > > > > > > > > If your feedback is – retire 6.5.1a, move definitions or clarifications > > > > to > > > > other sections, that is fine as well. We’re here to collect your input, > > > > and it is appreciated! > > > > > > > > Regards – > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Douglas J. Camin > > > > Member, ARIN Advisory Council > > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > > > > > > From: William Herrin <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 at 9:37 PM > > > > To: Douglas Camin <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > Cc: PPML <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Feedback Request: Policy ARIN-2024-6: 6.5.1a > > > > Definition Update > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 5:23 PM Douglas Camin > > > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > To think about it holistically – for all sections of NRPM aside from > > > > > 6.5, > > > > > LIRs and ISPs have distinct differences. Inside of Section 6.5, > > > > > anywhere > > > > > it references an LIR, that policy also applies to an ISP. This policy > > > > > changes the word “Document” to “Section” to ensure there is no > > > > > confusion > > > > > about that. > > > > > > > > Hi Doug, > > > > > > > > Well I sure don't like that plan. > > > > > > > > IMO, the proposed change just makes it more confusing. "Section" > > > > means... which section? Why should the reader understand it to mean > > > > section 6.5? Why not section 6? > > > > > > > > But that's not the biggest issue. Folks should be able to skip from > > > > section to section and understand the terms "LIR" and "ISP" to mean > > > > the same thing there that they do everywhere else. You're telling me > > > > that 6.5.1.a intends to morph the terms to a different meaning for > > > > section 6.5. That's bad. Really bad. Don't do that. > > > > > > > > Now that you call my attention to it, I think I'd like to see section > > > > 6.5.1 retired, any relevant terminology moved to section 2 where it > > > > belongs, and any text whose use of words is inharmonious with the rest > > > > of the document revised. And not necessarily in section 6.5 - we > > > > probably should be considering LIRs and ISPs to be the same thing > > > > elsewhere too. > > > > > > > > I'm curious: where in the NRPM is LIR and ISP not, for the purposes of > > > > ARIN policy, the same thing? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Bill Herrin > > > > > > > > > > > > p.s. 6.5.2.b is also poorly written. If I didn't already know what the > > > > nibble boundary is, it'd leave me scratching my head. Need simpler > > > > words along with enough context for a reader to gain a basic > > > > understanding of why it matters. > > > > > > > > "A nibble is half a byte: 4 bits. A nibble boundary in a netmask is > > > > where the number of bits in the mask is evenly divisible by 4. > > > > > > > > Nibble-based address delegation boundaries serve IPv6 in two ways: > > > > First, each written digit of an IPv6 address is exactly 4 bits. > > > > Second, the ip6.arpa reverse-DNS domain is engineered for > > > > nibble-boundary delegation." > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > William Herrin > > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > > https://bill.herrin.us/ > > > > > > > > <https://bill.herrin.us/>_______________________________________________ > > > > ARIN-PPML > > > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > > > > ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>). > > > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > > > Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience > > > > any > > > > issues. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ARIN-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: > > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-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: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
