[governance] Re: Good contribution on IP addresses and Internet Governance

[Roland Perry]

In message <4DB68450.7080607 at digsys.bg>, at 11:37:36 on Tue, 26 Apr 
2011, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> writes

>>> It's only if you are a large (for the most part) corporate or ISP that
>>> you go to your RIR to satisfy your IP addressing needs.
>>
>> Or if you are an organisation such as an IXP or perhaps a cctld 
>>operator, that wants to be neutral and independent from a commercial 
>>upstream.
>>
>> I realise that some people would characterise such organisations as 
>>ISPs, but that definition is often clouded by assumptions that ISPs 
>>need to have "connectivity customers" in order to be differentiated 
>>from "end users".

>This assumption is grossly distorted. You are an ISP, if you provide 
>any "Internet" services, to anyone.

IXPs only provide services to their members (who in turn provide it to 
their customers).

> That would classify DNS operators as ISPs as well.

Not in the generally accepted meaning of the word. As this is a 
governance list I'll simply comment that the entities I mentioned did 
not qualify as recipients of IPv6 addresses direct from at least one 
(and possibly several) RIRs in the early days, where it was assumed end 
users would always have an upstream, and IXPs and cctlds looked like end 
users themselves because they didn't have a business model that included 
allocating IP address space to classic end users.

And in the early days of IXPs, you often couldn't become a member unless 
you had classic end users - pure content providers were excluded.

>The RIR's assumption about ISPs is that these entities lease the IP 
>addresses to end users for the duration of the service.

And in what sense does Google's DNS server lease me an IP address while 
I query its server on 8.8.8.8? Does PIR lease me an IP address when I 
register a .org domain with them?

>Thus the ISP gets allocated larger chunk that they need for their own 
>operation, in order to accommodate such activity. By this definition, 
>hosting and collocation companies would also fall in the ISP category, 
>although they do not provide end connectivity.

Yes, hosting and co-location companies can and do qualify under the 
definition of ISP, but I didn't mention them.

>There needs to be clear balance with future IP address distribution 
>however. In Europe, if you want to be an independent resource holder, 
>you have to pay RIPE about as much, as a small ISP would. This only 
>makes trading the IP addresses cheaper more attractive option.

I'm unable to comment on address policy issues in the RIPE region at the 
moment.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t