Refuse een assignment because it 'cannot' be routed?
Dear colleagues, in the discussion about assigning fixed address space to residential always-on customers, I concluded that most ISPs are eager to provide their customers with this service, even using it as a weapon in the competition battle. However in some countries apparently the contrary is going on. All ISPs there offer 2 classes of DSL service: cheap subscriptions (low traffic, dynamic ip, no options) on one hand and an expensive 'pro' contract (high traffic volume, static ip, router etc.) on the other. Now a customer would like to get a static ip but does not want the router, large volume etc so he does not want to pay 4 times as much per month (real-life example) just to get a static ip. If the customers sends a RIPE-141 request to the ISP, can the ISP assign a range but not route it to the customer? Can it refuse the request on the grounds that it cannot route the assigned range to a dynamic ip? Or is the ISP obliged to assign a range and route it (no matter how, presumably by assigning the customer a static ip anyway) ? With or without additional (reasonable?) cost to the customer? tia best regards, Herbert -- HB5351 Herbert Baerten Network Manager HostIT Benelux
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Herbert Baerten wrote:
Now a customer would like to get a static ip but does not want the router, large volume etc so he does not want to pay 4 times as much per month (real-life example) just to get a static ip.
ONE static IP address? PA, I assume?
If the customers sends a RIPE-141 request to the ISP, can the ISP assign a range but not route it to the customer?
... which would be extremely useful for ???
Can it refuse the request on the grounds that it cannot route the assigned range to a dynamic ip?
... so, you want to rent a house and put a security guard on the entrance door not allowing people who bought it to move in. Interesting ...
Or is the ISP obliged to assign a range and route it (no matter how, presumably by assigning the customer a static ip anyway) ? With or without additional (reasonable?) cost to the customer?
Well, there is no formal policy obligation for you to route the addresses you assigned, but what would those addresses then be good for? Regards, Beri --------- Berislav Todorovic, Network Engineer --------- ------- KPNQwest N.V. - IP NOC (formerly EUnet NOC) ------- ---- Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 78, 2595 AN Den Haag, NL ---- --- Phone: +31-70-379-3990; Mobile: +31-651-333-641 --- -- Email: beri@kpnqwest.net <=> beri@EU.net -- --- _ _ ____ _ .--. ____ ____ __/_ --- ----- /__/ /___/ /\ / / / | / /___/ /___ / ------ ------ _/ \_ / _/ \/ (__.\ |/\/ /___ ____/ (__. -----
Now a customer would like to get a static ip but does not want ONE static IP address? PA, I assume?
Yes, PA.
If the customers sends a RIPE-141 request to the ISP, can the ISP assign a range but not route it to the customer?
... which would be extremely useful for ???
In order to force the customer to buy a more expensive service which includes fixed ip! Please understand that nor I nor my employer is doing this or even advocating this practice. To the contrary: I'm just observing that it happens and am so displeased about this that I am looking for ways to counter it.
Can it refuse the request on the grounds that it cannot route the assigned range to a dynamic ip?
... so, you want to rent a house and put a security guard on the entrance door not allowing people who bought it to move in. Interesting ...
I think it is more appropriate to state that someone is looking for a house but all landlords he meets will move his front door every day unless he pays tripple rent. I suppose the question can be phrased more theoretically as: "If a LIR is obliged to assign address space (is it?), wouldn't it make sense to oblige a provider to route it" or the other way'round: "If an address space request is made, is the non-willingness of an ISP to route it sufficient grounds to deny the request?"
Well, there is no formal policy obligation for you to route the addresses you assigned, but what would those addresses then be good for?
That's the point. Can the customer somehow (e.g. by submitting a ripe-141) force the ISP to assign him a static ip address? Or will it get him nowhere? BTW, you seem to assume that I represent the ISP, not the customer. Perhaps I should have added that I posed this question partly out of practical personal interest as a home user interested in ADSL, and partly out of theoretical professional interest as an employee at a LIR. So I tried to state the case in an objective fashion :) regards, Herbert
Now a customer would like to get a static ip but does not want ONE static IP address? PA, I assume?
Yes, PA.
If the customers sends a RIPE-141 request to the ISP, can the ISP assign a range but not route it to the customer?
... which would be extremely useful for ???
In order to force the customer to buy a more expensive service which includes fixed ip! Please understand that nor I nor my employer is doing this or even advocating this practice. To the contrary: I'm just observing that it happens and am so displeased about this that I am looking for ways to counter it.
Can it refuse the request on the grounds that it cannot route the assigned range to a dynamic ip?
... so, you want to rent a house and put a security guard on the entrance door not allowing people who bought it to move in. Interesting ...
I think it is more appropriate to state that someone is looking for a house but all landlords he meets will move his front door every day unless he pays tripple rent.
I suppose the question can be phrased more theoretically as:
"If a LIR is obliged to assign address space (is it?), wouldn't it make sense to oblige a provider to route it"
or the other way'round:
"If an address space request is made, is the non-willingness of an ISP to route it sufficient grounds to deny the request?"
Well, there is no formal policy obligation for you to route the addresses you assigned, but what would those addresses then be good for?
That's the point. Can the customer somehow (e.g. by submitting a ripe-141) force the ISP to assign him a static ip address? Or will it get him nowhere?
Hi, This is a very interesting problem. As far as I am aware there is no obligation to assign IP space when someone becomes a customer of an entity served by a LIR. Possible problems when submitting a RIPE-141 document: - There is no obligation to process the request - The LIR may charge for processing the request - The LIR may charge for the assignment - The provider may charge for the routing You could opt to ask RIPE for a PI allocation, but noone is required to route it for you. Regards, - marcel
I think it is more appropriate to state that someone is looking for a house but all landlords he meets will move his front door every day unless he pays tripple rent.
My analogy would be that unless you pay tripple rent you are not allowed to sub-let (connect more PCs with official addresses, atough you could always get married (NAT)) or start a small shop in your garage (put up a Warez sorry Web server) Moving from a volume charge service (dialup) to a fixed fee service (DSL) I do not find it that unreasonable to in some way limit the amout of Internet you can consume.
"If a LIR is obliged to assign address space (is it?),
I don't think so.
wouldn't it make sense to oblige a provider to route it"
I have always assumed that IP addresses is a comodity ISPs hand out with their services. If you buy service from an ISP then you get a reasonable number of IP addresses to use that service. If you buy a singe-user service, you get 1 IP address, if you buy a LAN service you get several addresses.
or the other way'round:
"If an address space request is made, is the non-willingness of an ISP to route it sufficient grounds to deny the request?"
If you don't buy the right kind of service from me, I am not going to acknowledge your IP address request.
That's the point. Can the customer somehow (e.g. by submitting a ripe-141) force the ISP to assign him a static ip address? Or will it get him nowhere?
In my opinion: Hardy. The ISP may then loose the customer of course bu that that is a comercial desicion. But Hey, I would love to buy a high speed domestic internet connection with some IP addresses to connect my computers, but unfortunately nobody is willing to offer me that yet. -hph
My analogy would be that unless you pay tripple rent you are not allowed to sub-let (connect more PCs with official addresses, atough you could always get married (NAT)) or start a small shop in your garage (put up a Warez sorry Web server)
No! no! no! :) I only want a fixed frontdoor (1 fixed IP address), but I am trying to force my landlord into letting me have it without paying tripple rent, by asking the government (RIPE) to give me a building permission to install more doors. Not because I want more doors, but to keep the landlord from moving my single door every day :)
Moving from a volume charge service (dialup) to a fixed fee service (DSL) I do not find it that unreasonable to in some way limit the amout of Internet you can consume.
I agree totally, but that is not my point. The point is that currently among all ADSL providers in my area, I can only choose between - package A: 1 dynamic IP, 1 or 10 GB traffic/month, no servers etc. and - package B: 1 static IP, 25 GB traffic/month or more, guaranteed minimum speed, web/mail server allowed, router+webspace+mailboxes included etc. Package A is fine for me, except the dynamic IP. I do not want to run servers or connect multiple computers (unless by using NAT). I want to connect through a firewall that only allows connections based on source IP address.
I have always assumed that IP addresses is a comodity ISPs hand out with their services. If you buy service from an ISP then you get a reasonable number of IP addresses to use that service. If you buy a singe-user service, you get 1 IP address, if you buy a LAN service you get several addresses.
Again I totally agree, but this is not the case in my area, imho.
If you don't buy the right kind of service from me, I am not going to acknowledge your IP address request.
I am indeed afraid that this will be the ISPs' opinions, so I (sorry: the customer :)) guess threatening to go to the competition is the only way. But if there is no competitor offering what the customer wants, it's going to be a meaningless threat... thanks for your opinions, Herbert
My analogy would be that unless you pay tripple rent you are not allowed to sub-let (connect more PCs with official addresses, atough you could always get married (NAT)) or start a small shop in your garage (put up a Warez sorry Web server)
No! no! no! :) I only want a fixed frontdoor (1 fixed IP address), but I am trying to force my landlord into letting me have it without paying tripple rent, by asking the government (RIPE) to give me a building permission to install more doors. Not because I want more doors, but to keep the landlord from moving my single door every day :)
Hi, Hmm... this analogy isn't correct. RIPE is not the government in this. RIPE, or your local LIR can give you a door (address assignment), but you still need to get a permit from the local counsil to place it (Getting your service provider to actually route it). One of the things your local LIR may require before selling you a door is having a permit. Buying the door somewhere else (RIPE) does not automagically entitle you to a permit.
Moving from a volume charge service (dialup) to a fixed fee service (DSL) I do not find it that unreasonable to in some way limit the amout of Internet you can consume.
I agree totally, but that is not my point. The point is that currently among all ADSL providers in my area, I can only choose between - package A: 1 dynamic IP, 1 or 10 GB traffic/month, no servers etc. and - package B: 1 static IP, 25 GB traffic/month or more, guaranteed minimum speed, web/mail server allowed, router+webspace+mailboxes included etc.
Package A is fine for me, except the dynamic IP. I do not want to run servers or connect multiple computers (unless by using NAT). I want to connect through a firewall that only allows connections based on source IP address.
I have always assumed that IP addresses is a comodity ISPs hand out with their services. If you buy service from an ISP then you get a reasonable number of IP addresses to use that service. If you buy a singe-user service, you get 1 IP address, if you buy a LAN service you get several addresses.
Again I totally agree, but this is not the case in my area, imho.
If you don't buy the right kind of service from me, I am not going to acknowledge your IP address request.
I am indeed afraid that this will be the ISPs' opinions, so I (sorry: the customer :)) guess threatening to go to the competition is the only way. But if there is no competitor offering what the customer wants, it's going to be a meaningless threat...
If this service is not currently being offered in your neighbourhood then you could always start selling and provisioning it yourself if you think there is a market for it. Regards, - marcel
the government (RIPE)
RIPE is not a government. RIPE sets policies based on consensus among its participants, it does not make laws based on majority votes. I do have sympathy with your problem, but I think a better way would be to educate the ISP in question why the product you suggest would increase their sales and improve customer satisfaction. Another side of this coin is that the current policies puts a strong emphasis on the use of dynamic IP addresses for mass-market products. -hph
participants (4)
-
Anne Marcel Roorda -
Berislav Todorovic -
Hans Petter Holen -
Herbert Baerten