Matt, IP address portability isn't really a problem, but I understand your point of view a bit better. One of the things we figured out is that ARIN allows for non-connected operators to reallocate blocks. It does frequently confuse whoever the ISP is getting their tier 1 connectivity from and its even worse if they get connectivity from smaller providers, but it does effectively allow the ISP to have portable space without having an ASN. Frequently the smaller operators are happy to have a /23 of portable space so they can use that for their static IP customers and deal with the change of addressing for everyone else.
Please note, this is not a money making operation for us. Its something we started doing in ~2003 to avoid having to constantly renumber networks and disrupt business accounts while allowing the ISPs to shop new bandwidth providers when they became available. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Matthew Petach <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Scott Helms <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Matt, > > > > While I understand your point _and_ I agree that in most cases an ISP > > should have an ASN. Having said that, I work with multiple operators > > around the US that have exactly one somewhat economical choice for > > connectivity to the rest of the Internet. In that case having a ASN is > > nice, but serves little to no practical purpose. For clarity's sake all > 6 > > of the ones I am thinking about specifically have more than 5k broadband > > subs. > > > > And as long as they're happy with their single upstream > connectivity picture, more power to them. > > But the minute they're less than happy with > their connectivity option, it would sure be > nice to have their own ASN and their own > IP space, so that going to a different upstream > provider would be possible. Heck, even just > having it as a *bargaining point* would be > useful. > > By not having it, they're essentially locking > the slave collar around their own neck, and > handing the leash to their upstream, along > with their wallet. As a freedom-of-choice > loving person, it boggles my mind why anyone > would subject their business to that level > of slavery. But I do acknowledge your > point, that for some category of people, > they are happy as clams with that > arrangement. > > > > > > I continue to vehemently disagree with the notion that ASN = ISP since > > many/most of the ASNs represent business networks that have nothing to do > > with Internet access. > > > > Oh, yes; totally agreed. It's a one-way relationship > in my mind; it's nigh-on impossible to be a competitive > ISP without an ASN; but in no way shape or form does > having an ASN make you an ISP. > > Thanks! > > Matt >
