On Jul 17, 2013, at 3:51 PM, "Alexander, Daniel" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Owen, > > Your reply sounds circular to me. Is the process of explaining resources > complicated because they are end users or ISP's, or are they complicated > because the policy requirements have made them so by creating all the > distinctions? All the issues you mention are because the policies are > different. I'm really not trying to give a cheap answer. It is a question > to the larger point of the email. I don't believe that the current process is complicated. I believe that if we were to try and shoehorn everything into one process, it would be complicated. My intent was to express how the current end-user policy does not map well to an ISP/LIR and how the current ISP/LIR policy would not map well to an end-user. If you have language that you think could be used to meet both sets of users' needs, then I would be very interested in seeing that. I have tried to think of language that could do that and it seems an insurmountable task to me, but I am perfectly willing to accept that you may be more clever or better able to tackle that problem than I am. > I was more curious about everyones thoughts on the high level concept. > Should the distinctions in network definitions be applied to how resources > are justified, tracked, or both? I think they are at least necessary in terms of justification. I think that because of the fee implications, they should also apply to how they are tracked. Further, I think it would be very punitive to end-users to make them start paying the same fees as LIRs/ISPs. > To make a change like this would require multiple proposals. David's > initial ISP allocation question is a good place to start. I do agree that the initial ISP allocation policy for IPv4 probably may be worth tweaking, not because I think that longer prefixes should be issued to ISPs as David proposes, but because I believe that we should remove some of the deadly-embrace conditions that exist in that policy and perhaps make it somewhat easier to qualify for a base /22 regardless of an ISPs immediate ability to utilize all of the space within 3 months. However, for the free pool, I don't see much point in changing IPv4 policy at this point. However, since this would also affect a new entities ability to obtain resources through the transfer process, I would suggest that effort in this area may still be worth while. Owen > > Dan Alexander > Speaking only for myself > > > > On 7/17/13 1:13 PM, "Owen DeLong" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> 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. >> >> Respectfully, I disagree. >> >> The process of explaining how one will use resources within a network >> over which one retains exclusive control can be and often is quite >> different from the process needed in order to explain how one plans to >> delegate resources to other organizations and networks outside of one's >> exclusive control. >> >> Having made applications under both policy frameworks and having been >> active in authoring policies on both sides of the spectrum, I think that >> the needs of these two different communities in terms of how they justify >> resources are, in fact, quite distinct. I suggest this exercise for >> anyone who doubts this is the case... >> >> Imagine you are an IPv6 end-user wanting to apply under NRPM 6 for >> resources. You have a single site and are hoping to obtain a /48. Now, >> read through the LIR/ISP policy for IPv6 and imagine trying to write your >> justification under that policy. It makes no sense whatsoever. >> >> A little (very little) less nonsensical... Imagine you are an LIR/ISP >> with 3,100 serving sites located throughout the ARIN service region. Your >> largest serving site serves 40,000 customer end-sites. Now review the >> end-user policies in section 6 and imagine applying under those. >> >> Yes, there are many organizations which are hybrids of these two >> environments these days. In most cases, those organizations are better >> served by the LIR/ISP policy and should apply under those policies. That >> is one of the reasons I suggested that we mostly let organizations >> self-categorize and give staff guidance and support stating that if an >> organization does not clearly fit within the end-user definition, they >> should be treated as an LIR/ISP. >> >>> 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. >> >> I simply don't see how that could be workable. Could you propose policy >> language you feel would adequately implement such a structure? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Owen >> _______________________________________________ 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.
