Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Policy Proposal: End user classification for Universities
owen at delong.com
Sat Jun 30 09:36:23 UTC 2012
On Jun 29, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Andrew Alston wrote:
>> The IP assigned to the port is controlled by the institution. The port itself is not. Please explain to me how this differs from any other residential ISP on the planet that assigns a single address to a residential ISP connection which they then use to NAT/Route an internal network topology within the residence.
>> What I have described is the exact connection model in use for dorm rooms, faculty residence facilities, and virtually every other residential internet service everywhere I've been.
>> If you can show me a difference or a reason that we should, then, not reclassify all of those residential ISPs as end-users (which would likely bankrupt the registries and increase EU fees substantially), then I am all ears.
> The port is owned and managed by the university firstly. Secondly, the institution policy prohibits more than one device behind the port, NAT like that is not allowed, irrespective of if people break the rules.
If you have such a policy, you might (might) have a case. However, the cable MSO owns the cable that comes into my house. The DSL company owns the copper up to the demarc in my house that my DSL router connects to. I suppose such a policy may be commonplace in African universities. Such policies used to be commonplace among telcos and cable MSOs in the US as well. In the US, they were deprecated several years ago as they were found to be laughably unenforceable.
You have not met the burden of proving in what way this is distinct from a cable company or other ISP delivering service to any other apartment complex.
> Now, by your logic, anyone who holds a conference and supplies wifi access to the attendees is an LIR, and a service provider. I mean nothing stopping me natting behind open wifi. Mmm do all the end users who run conferences have licenses to act as service providers? Interesting question that....
Licenses? Who said anything about licenses? We're just talking RIR policy here.
I would argue that if you run an open WiFi network, you probably do meet the test of LIR, though since your space footprint is likely small and/or the part of your space footprint that is represented by said open WiFi network is such a trivial fraction of your utilization that you probably get away with it unnoticed even though it is technically a policy issue.
OTOH, most of the conference networks I'm familiar with get their conference network addressing from the upstream LIR as PA space for the event which eliminates that issue altogether. The conference may be an LIR, but it's not a direct delegation from the RIR.
> Also by your logic, if I run a wifi point at home and someone gains access and runs NAT behind it undetected and illegally and provides a load of people with access to it, that would make me an LIR...
No, that's clearly an issue where there is most definitely a policy in opposition to the usage. If you review my earlier messages, you will find that I specifically said "unless you have policy prohibiting..."
> Luckily there is this little thing in law called intent.... I can explain the concept to you if you wish?
I'm well aware of the concept of intent. I'm also aware that intent is relevant only in a relatively small fraction of laws. For example, in every jurisdiction where I know the law in this regard, the fact that you didn't intend to exceed the speed limit does not get you out of a speeding ticket.
More information about the RPD