Hello David, I touched on this issue back in April and think this is a topic worth discussing. As Chris mentioned in his reply, it is related to 2013-5:LIR/ISP and End-user Definitions, but I think this is a larger concept that the definitions will play a part.
The lines between ISP's, end-user, and all other networks are blurry. There are global end-user networks that dwarf the networks of many ISP's. There are ISP networks serving ISP networks who serve ISP networks. And there are service networks that cross the boundaries of both definitions. I would contend that they all fall into a more generalized definition of Organizations operating networks providing connectivity to their users. Those users can be any number of things like members of a community, customers paying for a service, a student on campus, a hosting customer, or HR department. Before everyone nitpicks the paragraph above, I would like to clarify, that I don't think the distinctions should be abandoned. I simply think they should be refocused to what is relevant to an RIR. There are two general principles being discussed in 2013-4: RIR Principles that I think people can agree upon. One is that an RIR should make unique assignments. The other is that they should be able to keep track of them. I left this vague because I don't want to cross the streams of the two conversations. The point I'm trying to make is that the distinction between the network definitions may apply to how the resource assignments should be tracked, but they should be less of a factor in how the resources are obtained. This becomes even more relevant in todays world where transfers will soon outnumber assignments/allocations, and we see organizations redefining what they are in order to save on member fees, or meet different qualifying requirements. I think there should be a single set of parameters regarding minimum allocation size, timeframes, utilization requirements, and qualifying requirements. Somewhere we blurred the lines of how resources are allocated with how they should be tracked and the result is the dichotomy you mentioned. I also feel that this creation of classes is contrary to the stewardship our RIR policies should provide. As this discussion continues to develop I would like to see the distinction between PI and PA allocations and assignment requirements be removed. I would suggest they all be resource allocations that are given to a network operator, with possibly different requirements as to how they should be tracked. Thank you for reviving this conversation. Dan Alexander Speaking only for myself From: David Huberman <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:34:07 +0000 To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [arin-ppml] Initial ISP Allocation Policy Hello, For 15 years, ARIN policy (derived from RFC2050) has promoted a dichotomy between provider networks and enterprise networks. I submit that the dichotomy between enterprises and providers is unbalanced, technically unjustified, and represents poor stewardship. I believe ARIN Policy should remove the barriers for provider networks who wish to begin numbering their network with space from the Registry. Under today¹s Policy framework, it is very easy to get an initial assignment of IPv4 addresses from the Registry if you are a multi-homed enterprise network. Qualifying for a /24 is as simple as having a need to use 64 IPv4 addresses right away, and projecting a need for at least 128 IPv4 addresses within one year. This Policy is, in this writer¹s opinion, very good. Under today¹s Policy framework, it is not very easy, however, to get an initial allocation of IPv4 addresses from the Registry if you are a multi-homed provider network. Qualifying for the minimum allocation size of a /22 requires the network to already be utilizing a /23 equivalent from other providers or peers, and be willing and able to commit to ARIN to renumbering out of that space before being eligible for an additional allocation. Normally, I would submit a Draft Policy Proposal to offer a sound policy solution. Watching PPML over the last 10 years, however, has me shying away from a proposal because I sense there are too many who are against any changes to the IPv4 policy framework. I am, therefore, posting this message in hopes of taking the temperature of the policy community. I think a potential policy change is relevant at such a late date because the math clearly shows that the largest networks will be the ones who will be first unable to receive meaningful additional IPv4 address blocks from ARIN. The smallest of networks should be able to receive allocations and assignments from ARIN long after the large networks have exhausted. I think, therefore, that a fix to what I believe is an unfair policy would be relevant for a few years going forward. What do you think? With regards, David DAVID R Huberman Senior Program Manager Microsoft GFS 425-777-0259 (w) [email protected] _______________________________________________ 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.
