On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:36 AM, David Huberman <[email protected]> wrote: > - A section on obtaining additional blocks, which still outlines the 80% rule. > > - We would have to figure out what to do with the requirement to SWIP, > as the requirement is predicated on the classification of "ISP" actually > existing (which it would not). That might need a working group to reconcile.
Hi David, If you want to get there incrementally (which IMHO is the only way you might get there), start here. Convert the ISP and end-user specific reporting requirements into address use classes which apply across both registrant types. Start that effort by enumerating the different ways in which addresses are used. Then match them up to what kind of reporting we expect for those uses and why we want that reporting. Examples: Use type: assignment to a customer Desired reporting: SWIP or RWHOIS of address range matched to customer identity Rationale: transparency and accountability. Use type: employee DHCP pool Desired reporting: host count Rationale: We don't need more than a rough host count to evaluate whether you're making efficient use of IP addresses. We know how big your company is so we'll know if your host count is unreasonable. Which employees, which company location, we don't need to know that to authenticate the use. Use type: ephemeral customer pool Desired reporting: 95th percentile use Rationale: We don't need to know each customer temporarily holding an IP address but it's important that you not overfill your DHCP pools while someone else starves for addresses. Some of you have allowed vendors to saddle you with tech that manages addresses badly. This is not OK. Use type: long hold customer pool Desired reporting: If the customer holds the same DHCP address for a year, is there a difference between that and explicitly assigning the address? etc. etc. Next step after that is to merge these use types into general categories based on the desired reporting. Then apply to both types of organizations (ISP and end-user) and retire the org type specific requirements. With reporting equalized, the next step is to equalize the qualification criteria based on the reporting. Once qualifications and reporting are equalized, it falls on the ARIN board to equalize the fee schedule. And then finally we do away with the distinction between ISP and end-user altogether. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ 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.
