If LIR and end-user effectively becomes one and the same: what's that mean for someone at home asking for a PIA /24 v4 block?
For v6, I see no problem of course. But v4? Would we want a seperate ISP/End-user policy per-AFI? -- Sent from my iPhone On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 at 2:09 AM, Eric C. Landgraf <[email protected]> wrote: > I would like to see the LIR and end-user provisions nearly merged. A > large university like my own organization happens to sit in that grey > area where it looks like an LIR or an end-user, depending on the > meterstick you use. I would much prefer that organizations just have to > justify how much space they intend to use, and justify that they should > get space---obviously your average home-user doesn't need PI space. > > There are still many ambiguities for large campuses starting on their > IPv6 journey: what is a "serving site" and how to create a reasonable > network plan that allows aggregation. We don't need them also asking "Am > I an LIR?" > > Eric C. Landgraf > Virginia Tech > > On Jun 25 14:46, William Herrin wrote: > > Howdy, > > > > I didn't see any feedback on the draft policy rewriting section 6.5, > > so I want to step back and solicit your opinions on what ARIN's IPv6 > > policies should become. I'm going to ask some questions and break them > > into separate message threads so that they can be followed separately > > according to your interest. > > > > > > The question for this thread is: Should we attempt to merge ISP and > > end-user IPv6 address allocation policy? > > > > > > Traditionally, long ago when the InterNIC Hostmaster ran IPv4 address > > allocation, there was no distinction between ISPs and end users. If > > you wanted IP addresses, you got them. If you wanted a lot of IP > > addresses you had to explain why. Being an ISP was a good reason. > > There were a number of other good reasons. There was no specific > > category for ISPs. > > > > Around the time the InterNIC was divided up into ICANN and the RIRs, > > there was another important event in Internet history: the EGP routing > > table crisis. With the sudden public interest in the Internet in the > > mid-'90s and the corresponding explosive growth, we nearly exhausted > > the capacity of the backbone routing table. Through a heroic effort of > > the standards bodies and the software and hardware developers at the > > router vendors, we replaced Classful routing with CIDR and EGP with > > BGP, averting the crisis with literally weeks to spare. > > > > Coming out of the crisis, the smart people in the know said: Never > > again. We're going to give large IP address blocks to ISPs who will > > consume one slot in the BGP table. To the maximum extent practical, > > end users aren't going to have their own routes in the BGP table. > > > > This division between haves and have-nots was embedded deeply into > > every RIR's address allocation policy. > > > > The last quarter century has been a slow but steady retreat from that > > position. Efficient use of /19 became /20 and then dragged all the way > > back to the original class C, /24 limit where we are today. No one > > ever developed a satisfactory replacement for BGP multihoming, not > > even with IPv6. And slicing a /24 out of ISP space for an end-user to > > multihome turns out to have problems if you don't also disaggregate > > the entire larger block in BGP. Which is a bad thing. So BGP > > multihoming has become re-recognized as a proper reason for end users > > to have their own IP addresses from ARIN. Even the ARIN fee schedule > > and membership rights have been unified. The major remaining vestige > > of the original division between ISP and end-user is the requirement > > for ISPs to report their customer registrations with SWIP and their > > ability to record those registrations as in-use. End-users > > theoretically don't have downstream customer registrations to report > > or record. > > > > This presents an opportunity. As we look at replacing the thick > > language in the IPv6 policies, we can try to make the policy uniform: > > the same fair policy for everybody, end users and ISPs both. > > > > What do you think? Would you like to take a stab at it, or do you > > prefer that the ISP/end user division stay where it is? Your views are > > respectfully requested. > > > > Regards, > > Bill Herrin > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > [image: 9919c18d5054ae5edae48ddb4c6e86ec3091d41e]
_______________________________________________ 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.
