Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

Scott Helms khelms at
Tue Jul 15 12:39:00 UTC 2014


IP address portability isn't really a problem, but I understand your point
of view a bit better.  One of the things we figured out is that ARIN allows
for non-connected operators to reallocate blocks.  It does frequently
confuse whoever the ISP is getting their tier 1 connectivity from and its
even worse if they get connectivity from smaller providers, but it does
effectively allow the ISP to have portable space without having an ASN.
 Frequently the smaller operators are happy to have a /23 of portable space
so they can use that for their static IP customers and deal with the change
of addressing for everyone else.

Please note, this is not a money making operation for us.  Its something we
started doing in ~2003 to avoid having to constantly renumber networks and
disrupt business accounts while allowing the ISPs to shop new bandwidth
providers when they became available.

Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
(678) 507-5000

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at>

> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at> wrote:
> > Matt,
> >
> > While I understand your point _and_ I agree that in most cases an ISP
> > should have an ASN.  Having said that,  I work with multiple operators
> > around the US that have exactly one somewhat economical choice for
> > connectivity to the rest of the Internet.  In that case having a ASN is
> > nice, but serves little to no practical purpose.  For clarity's sake all
> 6
> > of the ones I am thinking about specifically have more than 5k broadband
> > subs.
> >
> And as long as they're happy with their single upstream
> connectivity picture, more power to them.
> But the minute they're less than happy with
> their connectivity option, it would sure be
> nice to have their own ASN and their own
> IP space, so that going to a different upstream
> provider would be possible.  Heck, even just
> having it as a *bargaining point* would be
> useful.
> By not having it, they're essentially locking
> the slave collar around their own neck, and
> handing the leash to their upstream, along
> with their wallet.  As a freedom-of-choice
> loving person, it boggles my mind why anyone
> would subject their business to that level
> of slavery.  But I do acknowledge your
> point, that for some category of people,
> they are happy as clams with that
> arrangement.
> >
> > I continue to vehemently disagree with the notion that ASN = ISP since
> > many/most of the ASNs represent business networks that have nothing to do
> > with Internet access.
> >
> Oh, yes; totally agreed.  It's a one-way relationship
> in my mind; it's nigh-on impossible to be a competitive
> ISP without an ASN; but in no way shape or form does
> having an ASN make you an ISP.
> Thanks!
> Matt

More information about the NANOG mailing list