From ginny at arin.net  Thu Jan  4 08:20:07 2001
From: ginny at arin.net (ginny listman)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 08:20:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Just to clarify
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1010104080710.11349A-100000@ops.arin.net>

Hi, my name is Ginny Listman.  As of early December, I am the new Director
of Engineering here at ARIN.  In a meeting yesterday, to discuss database
changes, the following policy issue came up.

Apparently, there have been some upstream ISPs that have assigned some
networks via SWIP, where later the downstream comes back saying it should
have been an allocation, ie they want a maintainer id so they can
assign/allocate further on down.

In most cases, RSG has been granting the downstream's wish, creating the
maintainer id, allowing them to further assign/allocate.

Many times, it is just a minor error in the SWIP template, and shouldn't
be a big deal.  However, would there ever be a situation where the
upstream would not want the downstream to be assigning/allocating?  Should
ARIN be responsible for notifying the upstream?  We have be processing
these request because we do not want to delay the downstream's business.  
Do we need a written policy to define how we should be processing such a
request?



From shane at ripe.net  Thu Jan  4 10:12:20 2001
From: shane at ripe.net (Shane Kerr)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:12:20 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Just to clarify
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1010104080710.11349A-100000@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.05L.10101041606100.6382-100000@x17.ripe.net>

On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, ginny listman wrote:

> Apparently, there have been some upstream ISPs that have assigned some
> networks via SWIP, where later the downstream comes back saying it
> should have been an allocation, ie they want a maintainer id so they
> can assign/allocate further on down.

<snip/>

> Many times, it is just a minor error in the SWIP template, and
> shouldn't be a big deal.  However, would there ever be a situation
> where the upstream would not want the downstream to be
> assigning/allocating?  Should ARIN be responsible for notifying the
> upstream?  We have be processing these request because we do not want
> to delay the downstream's business.  Do we need a written policy to
> define how we should be processing such a request?

Question: Can the ISP that received the parent block modify/delete the
blocks allocated/assigned by its children?

In any case, in lieu of a genuine notification mechanism, I think ARIN
should send an e-mail to the upstream.  I wouldn't think waiting approval
is necessary, as long as ARIN is willing to delete any records added by
the downstream if approval is denied.

Shane




From jb at jbacher.com  Thu Jan  4 11:42:37 2001
From: jb at jbacher.com (J Bacher)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 10:42:37 -0600
Subject: Just to clarify
Message-ID: <4.2.2.20010104104203.00b71ea0@mail.jbacher.com>

At 08:20 AM 1/4/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Apparently, there have been some upstream ISPs that have assigned some
>networks via SWIP, where later the downstream comes back saying it should
>have been an allocation, ie they want a maintainer id so they can
>assign/allocate further on down.
>
>In most cases, RSG has been granting the downstream's wish, creating the
>maintainer id, allowing them to further assign/allocate.
>
>Many times, it is just a minor error in the SWIP template, and shouldn't
>be a big deal.  However, would there ever be a situation where the
>upstream would not want the downstream to be assigning/allocating?  Should
>ARIN be responsible for notifying the upstream?

Yes.

>Do we need a written policy to define how we should be processing such a
>request?

Yes.  Upstreams should have the [e-mail automated] option to 'ack' or 
'nack' such a request.

There are ISPs that sell bandwidth at different rates -- wholesale vs 
retail.  If a retail agreement is in place, the downstream explicity may 
not re-sell the bandwidth and may not assign network addresses without 
paying for such a service.



From huberman at gblx.net  Thu Jan  4 11:38:42 2001
From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:38:42 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Just to clarify
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1010104080710.11349A-100000@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0101040936260.3642-100000@shell1.phx.gblx.net>


It's just my opinion, but I do not think ARIN should be granting those
requests from the downstream provider. It's not the RSG's place to define
the relationship between said downstream and their upstream. The RSG
should be referring the downstream requestor back to their provider.

If you disagree, then at least follow Shane's excellent suggestion of
committing to removing all grandchildren reassignments if the parent
provider declines permission.

/david

*--------------------------------*
| Global Crossing IP Engineering |
| Manager, Global IP Addressing  |
|   TEL: (908) 720-6182          |
|   FAX: (703) 464-0802          |
*--------------------------------*



From mborchers at splitrock.net  Thu Jan  4 11:59:30 2001
From: mborchers at splitrock.net (Mark Borchers)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:59:30 -0600 
Subject: Just to clarify
Message-ID: <CA47B6D616C0D211B92E0008C7C5657C0852894C@hscmpxsrvcl01>

> Many times, it is just a minor error in the SWIP template, 
> and shouldn't
> be a big deal.  However, would there ever be a situation where the
> upstream would not want the downstream to be 
> assigning/allocating?  Should
> ARIN be responsible for notifying the upstream?  We have be processing
> these request because we do not want to delay the 
> downstream's business.  
> Do we need a written policy to define how we should be 
> processing such a
> request?


IMHO, ARIN's responsibility is to follow its own process.  In
other words, to operate on the premise that when the originator
of a SWIP says "allocation" they mean "allocation" and when they
say "assignment" they mean "assignment".  

If the SWIP is submitted with an error, the originator should
submit a correction. 


From HRyu at norlight.com  Thu Jan  4 12:29:43 2001
From: HRyu at norlight.com (Hyunseog Ryu)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:29:43 -0600
Subject: Just to clarify
Message-ID: <OFE9EAD1A2.20E1E4CB-ON862569CA.005DE306@norlight.com>


On 01/04/2001 07:20:07 AM owner-ppml wrote:

>> Hi, my name is Ginny Listman.  As of early December, I am the new
Director
>> of Engineering here at ARIN.  In a meeting yesterday, to discuss
database
>> changes, the following policy issue came up.
>>
>> Apparently, there have been some upstream ISPs that have assigned some
>> networks via SWIP, where later the downstream comes back saying it
should
>> have been an allocation, ie they want a maintainer id so they can
>> assign/allocate further on down.
I have one question.
Why does ARIN accept downstream provider's opinion directly?
In this case, ARIN allocates IP addresses to upstream provider.
Therefore in my humble opinion, upstream provider should handle
allocation/assignment to downstream provider.
If downstream provider has a problem with assignment, they have to bring
the issue with upstream provider,
and if there is a need to change from ARIN, "upstream provider" should
contact with ARIN.
Essentially in this case, I think downstream provider doesn't have
authority to request that kind of change from ARIN directly,
and upstream provider has.
>>
>> In most cases, RSG has been granting the downstream's wish, creating the
>> maintainer id, allowing them to further assign/allocate.
In my opinion, it's somewhat confusing.
When ARIN allocates IP addresses to upstream provider, upstream provider
should decide whether they want to give IP addresses
to customers by allocation or not.
Upstream provider has responsibility for efficient IP address management
including SWIP/RWHOIS data management.

>>
>> Many times, it is just a minor error in the SWIP template, and shouldn't
>> be a big deal.  However, would there ever be a situation where the
>> upstream would not want the downstream to be assigning/allocating?
Should
>> ARIN be responsible for notifying the upstream?  We have be processing
>> these request because we do not want to delay the downstream's business.
>> Do we need a written policy to define how we should be processing such a
>> request?
>>
It's upstream provider's decision.
If upstream provider assigned IP addresses to the customer, they will be
some reason.
If the customer want to change that from assignment to allocation, the
customer should deal with upstream provider,
because it's upstream provider's decision to manage their allocated IP
addresses from ARIN.
I think at least ARIN should forward those request to upstream provider,
and wait for their decision.
I don't see any critical business issue from downstream provider for this
issue.
If there is business delay for this, that's the issue between upstream
provider and downstream provider.

This is my huble opinion. :-)
If ARIN allocates IP addresses to upstream provider with responsibility of
efficient manner's IP address management,
upstream provider should handle this issue because this is a part of IP
address management.
Am I wrong?

Hyunseog Ryu
Network Engineer/Applications Engineering Department
Norlight Telecommunications, Inc.



From mark-list at mentovai.com  Thu Jan  4 13:56:51 2001
From: mark-list at mentovai.com (Mark Mentovai)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:56:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: fwd ppml: ARIN asking about SWIP procedures
In-Reply-To: <20010104122718.B25564@rahul.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0101041329010.17633-100000@pine.ggn.net>

>Hi, my name is Ginny Listman.  As of early December, I am the new Director
>of Engineering here at ARIN.  In a meeting yesterday, to discuss database
>changes, the following policy issue came up.
>
>Apparently, there have been some upstream ISPs that have assigned some
>networks via SWIP, where later the downstream comes back saying it should
>have been an allocation, ie they want a maintainer id so they can
>assign/allocate further on down.
>
>In most cases, RSG has been granting the downstream's wish, creating the
>maintainer id, allowing them to further assign/allocate.
>
>Many times, it is just a minor error in the SWIP template, and shouldn't
>be a big deal.  However, would there ever be a situation where the
>upstream would not want the downstream to be assigning/allocating?  Should
>ARIN be responsible for notifying the upstream?  We have be processing
>these request because we do not want to delay the downstream's business.
>Do we need a written policy to define how we should be processing such a
>request?

The upstream might not be all that fond of its customer reselling service,
and this may be taken into consideration by their contract, but the
downstream is going to dole out the space regardless of their ability to
SWIP subassignments.  I would think that it's in ARIN's interest to foster
the maintenance of as accurate a database as possible, and leave quarrels
over type of service between a provider and its customers to the provider
and its customers.  It's not the RIR's responsibility to enforce contract
terms between an ISP and its downstreams.  Some mechanism should be provided
for the maintainer of a block (either directly obtained from ARIN or from an
upstream via SWIP) to list all allocations, assignments, suballocations, and
subassignments so that he or she can enforce contracts appropriately.

I'm personally glad that ARIN changes the status of blocks from assigned to
allocated and performs other active maintenance upon request.  It's been of
direct value to me when upstreams do the wrong thing and assign instead of
allocate or set the wrong maintainer ID on an allocation.  These are usually
misunderstandings, and getting them straigtened out would take weeks if done
through the provider.

All of that said, this can be taken to the logical extreme and the
distinction between allocations and assignments can be eliminated
altogether, and provider/maintainer IDs can be replaced purely with ARIN
handles.

Finally, the ability to submit assignment and allocation information via
rwhois seems like a license for inconsistency.  Rwhois was a great idea that
never took off.  It would be interesting if this information could be
provided by splintering off a new DNS class (or at least some new RR types.)
Has anyone ever considered this?

Mark




From crain at icann.org  Thu Jan  4 14:02:28 2001
From: crain at icann.org (John Crain)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:02:28 -0800
Subject: Just to clarify
In-Reply-To: <CA47B6D616C0D211B92E0008C7C5657C0852894C@hscmpxsrvcl01>
Message-ID: <NEBBJFHFKDLFNFKGFPCEOEDCCBAA.crain@icann.org>

I would probably go for not changing peoples data but having a standard
reply that tells them to contact their upstream and Cc:'s the upstreams
contact so that a) they have the email address and b) the upstream is aware
that they requested a change.

I don't think ARIN should be put in the situation that it has
to correct all ISP mistakes in the database. The ISP's should be responsible
for what they swip.

If they annoy their customers by making these mistakes and then have to
repair them themselves they may learn to be more careful about swipping
correct data.

JC
All opinions expressed are strictly my own.
Unless someone willing to pay me for them?



From randy at psg.com  Thu Jan  4 14:17:52 2001
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 11:17:52 -0800
Subject: Just to clarify
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1010104080710.11349A-100000@ops.arin.net>
Message-ID: <E14EFtY-0000bf-00@rip.psg.com>

first, i want to express my deep appreciation for your taking this to the
public lists.  getting open community discussion and buy-in is important.

> Apparently, there have been some upstream ISPs that have assigned some
> networks via SWIP, where later the downstream comes back saying it should
> have been an allocation, ie they want a maintainer id so they can
> assign/allocate further on down.

my two scents.  you need agreement of the assigning up-stream.  send an
email to the listed poc(s).  an approval is an approval.  no response in two
working weeks, i.e. not for example over ramadan high days, is an implicit
approval.

randy


From jb at jbacher.com  Thu Jan  4 14:33:34 2001
From: jb at jbacher.com (J Bacher)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 13:33:34 -0600
Subject: fwd ppml: ARIN asking about SWIP procedures
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0101041329010.17633-100000@pine.ggn.net>
References: <20010104122718.B25564@rahul.net>
Message-ID: <4.2.2.20010104132849.00b82a60@mail.jbacher.com>

At 01:56 PM 1/4/01 -0500, Mark Mentovai wrote:

>The upstream might not be all that fond of its customer reselling service,
>and this may be taken into consideration by their contract, but the
>downstream is going to dole out the space regardless of their ability to
>SWIP subassignments.  I would think that it's in ARIN's interest to foster
>the maintenance of as accurate a database as possible, and leave quarrels
>over type of service between a provider and its customers to the provider

It is ARIN's responsibility to respect the wishes of the paying clients of 
those network blocks via that client's template submissions.

ARIN has no definitive way to prove that the changes being requested by the 
client's downstream are accurate.  That puts a burden on that body that it 
simply does not need.

It is the client's responsibility to ensure that the network blocks are 
appropriately SWIPed by its downstreams.



From huberman at gblx.net  Thu Jan  4 14:30:12 2001
From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:30:12 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Just to clarify : Conclusion?
In-Reply-To: <E14EFtY-0000bf-00@rip.psg.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0101041222160.5504-100000@shell1.phx.gblx.net>

Hello everyone,

Quick recaps, then a suggested course of action:

	* Mark's points about the ease of accomplishing one's goals
	  when working with ARIN's RSG are very important. The best
	  thing about the RSG is their ability to get things done
	  quickly without having to work within a giant, slow bureaucracy
	  to effect change. We need to always keep this in mind when
	  discussing procedures.

	* In support of what many people have already written, I think it
	  is very important for ARIN to acknowledge that it should not
	  directly interfere with upstream/downstream relations except in
	  cases where the upstream is being unresponsive.

Thus, to reconcile the need to maintain an accurate WHOIS database with
the need for ARIN to remain impartial in inter-ISP relations, I suggest
the following policy:

If a provider who has been assigned address space from their upstream
wishes to assign address space further downstream, they are encouraged to
petition their upstream provider to re-SWIP the address space as an
allocation. If the upstream provider is unresponsive, the downstream
provider may then petition ARIN to enact this change. ARIN will make its
best attempt to contact the upstream provider to obtain their permission.
If the provider declines permission, ARIN will notify the petitioner as
such. If the provider is unresponsive after 10 business days, ARIN will
accede to the petitioner's request and notify the upstream of the
change(s).


/david

*--------------------------------*
| Global Crossing IP Engineering |
| Manager, Global IP Addressing  |
|   TEL: (908) 720-6182          |
|   FAX: (703) 464-0802          |
*--------------------------------*




From jb at jbacher.com  Thu Jan  4 15:20:52 2001
From: jb at jbacher.com (J Bacher)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:20:52 -0600
Subject: Just to clarify : Conclusion?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0101041222160.5504-100000@shell1.phx.gblx.ne
 t>
References: <E14EFtY-0000bf-00@rip.psg.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.2.20010104141903.00b8d940@mail.jbacher.com>

At 12:30 PM 1/4/01 -0700, you wrote:
>If a provider who has been assigned address space from their upstream
>wishes to assign address space further downstream, they are encouraged to
>petition their upstream provider to re-SWIP the address space as an
>allocation. If the upstream provider is unresponsive, the downstream
>provider may then petition ARIN to enact this change. ARIN will make its
>best attempt to contact the upstream provider to obtain their permission.
>If the provider declines permission, ARIN will notify the petitioner as
>such. If the provider is unresponsive after 10 business days, ARIN will
>accede to the petitioner's request and notify the upstream of the
>change(s).

The downstream doesn't pay for the network blocks.  An implicit deny is 
more appropriate.



From mark-list at mentovai.com  Thu Jan  4 15:26:53 2001
From: mark-list at mentovai.com (Mark Mentovai)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:26:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Just to clarify : Conclusion?
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010104141903.00b8d940@mail.jbacher.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0101041516280.17852-100000@pine.ggn.net>

J Bacher wrote:
>The downstream doesn't pay for the network blocks.  An implicit deny is
>more appropriate.

The downstream isn't going to use the address space any differently just
because they can or can't submit reassignment information.  The issue isn't
whether or not downstreams should be forced into obeying negotiated terms,
the issue is how close the database should reflect reality.  ARIN will never
be able to enforce how already-allocated address space is used, anyone
pretending that the A/S field protects anything but the database is fooling
themselves.

An organization bent on reselling services even when it has been explicitly
prohibited is going to do so regardless of their ability to document their
actions with SWIP.  At least if they are permitted to SWIP and do so, their
upstream will have evidence that they have broken the contract.

Mark



From jb at jbacher.com  Thu Jan  4 15:49:23 2001
From: jb at jbacher.com (J Bacher)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:49:23 -0600
Subject: Just to clarify : Conclusion?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0101041516280.17852-100000@pine.ggn.net>
References: <4.2.2.20010104141903.00b8d940@mail.jbacher.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.2.20010104144111.00b714a0@mail.jbacher.com>

At 03:26 PM 1/4/01 -0500, you wrote:
>The downstream isn't going to use the address space any differently just
>because they can or can't submit reassignment information.  The issue isn't
>whether or not downstreams should be forced into obeying negotiated terms,
>the issue is how close the database should reflect reality.  ARIN will never
>be able to enforce how already-allocated address space is used, anyone
>pretending that the A/S field protects anything but the database is fooling
>themselves.

The downstream -is- going to use the address space differently.  As a 
provider, I require justification prior to allocating or assigning network 
blocks just as ARIN expects such.  I also expect those that I allocate 
network blocks to -- to submit the appropriate SWIPs which is used to 
verify the justification.

Your idea is operating upon the presumption that the changes being made by 
the downstream are somehow more accurate than what the upstream provided.

>An organization bent on reselling services even when it has been explicitly
>prohibited is going to do so regardless of their ability to document their
>actions with SWIP.  At least if they are permitted to SWIP and do so, their
>upstream will have evidence that they have broken the contract.

If the upstream provided an assignment, then ARIN ought to honor that 
assignment and not leave it to the whim of the downstream to change that.

The change from assignment to allocation issue belongs between the upstream 
and downstream.

I was providing but one example of why it would be inappropriate for ARIN 
to get in the middle.  That doesn't change the fact that ARIN shouldn't be 
in the middle of this since it has no way of knowing, without upstream 
confirmation, that the information it is receiving is any more accurate 
than the information that it has.



From randy at psg.com  Thu Jan  4 15:40:49 2001
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 12:40:49 -0800
Subject: Just to clarify : Conclusion?
References: <4.2.2.20010104141903.00b8d940@mail.jbacher.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.31.0101041516280.17852-100000@pine.ggn.net>
Message-ID: <E14EHBp-00039p-00@rip.psg.com>

> The downstream isn't going to use the address space any differently just
> because they can or can't submit reassignment information.

that is not yours, mine, or arin's to decide.

randy


From mury at goldengate.net  Thu Jan  4 19:41:50 2001
From: mury at goldengate.net (Mury)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:41:50 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Just to clarify : Conclusion?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0101041222160.5504-100000@shell1.phx.gblx.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.21.0101041838100.25733-100000@dew.goldengate.net>


This seems to make a lot of sense, but I do have a question.  How often
does this happen?  If it happens a lot, I don't think ARIN should have to
do any processing, but rather just notify the party that they do not have
a relationship with ARIN and they need to contact "___________" in regards
to their request.

If this type of request is rare, it would be nice if ARIN would try to
assist the downstream as David outlined.

Nobody should lose business due to a delay in the swip process.

Mury
GoldenGate Internet Services

On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, David R Huberman wrote:

> Hello everyone,
> 
> Quick recaps, then a suggested course of action:
> 
> 	* Mark's points about the ease of accomplishing one's goals
> 	  when working with ARIN's RSG are very important. The best
> 	  thing about the RSG is their ability to get things done
> 	  quickly without having to work within a giant, slow bureaucracy
> 	  to effect change. We need to always keep this in mind when
> 	  discussing procedures.
> 
> 	* In support of what many people have already written, I think it
> 	  is very important for ARIN to acknowledge that it should not
> 	  directly interfere with upstream/downstream relations except in
> 	  cases where the upstream is being unresponsive.
> 
> Thus, to reconcile the need to maintain an accurate WHOIS database with
> the need for ARIN to remain impartial in inter-ISP relations, I suggest
> the following policy:
> 
> If a provider who has been assigned address space from their upstream
> wishes to assign address space further downstream, they are encouraged to
> petition their upstream provider to re-SWIP the address space as an
> allocation. If the upstream provider is unresponsive, the downstream
> provider may then petition ARIN to enact this change. ARIN will make its
> best attempt to contact the upstream provider to obtain their permission.
> If the provider declines permission, ARIN will notify the petitioner as
> such. If the provider is unresponsive after 10 business days, ARIN will
> accede to the petitioner's request and notify the upstream of the
> change(s).
> 
> 
> /david
> 
> *--------------------------------*
> | Global Crossing IP Engineering |
> | Manager, Global IP Addressing  |
> |   TEL: (908) 720-6182          |
> |   FAX: (703) 464-0802          |
> *--------------------------------*
> 
> 



From shane at ripe.net  Fri Jan  5 05:14:02 2001
From: shane at ripe.net (Shane Kerr)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 11:14:02 +0100 (CET)
Subject: fwd ppml: ARIN asking about SWIP procedures
In-Reply-To: <3A54D4A6.89F845D8@ehsco.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.4.05L.10101051101420.6382-100000@x17.ripe.net>

Hmm...time to trim the Cc list?  Anyway...

On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Eric A. Hall wrote:

> All of this stuff (global WHOIS included) really needs to go into
> LDAP, using standardized schemas for the relevant data. Obviously the
> schema is job #1. All of the [g/cc]TLD databases and numbering
> authoritites really should have made this a collective priority a
> couple of years ago.
> 
> Note that putting the data into LDAP doesn't preclude WHOIS clients
> from talking to a WHOIS server which proxies the LDAP data.

I'm not sure this is a good idea, or even possible.  Given the wide range
of organizational approaches and privacy customs and/or laws worldwide,
I'm not sure how you could approach this.

Even within just the RIR's, there's the different philosophies regarding
the contents of the data.  For instance, ARIN maintains fairly
tight-fisted control over it's database, which allows them the freedom to
fix things that are broken.  The RIPE database is owned and maintained by
RIPE members, which allows members the freedom to update their information
on their own, and use the amount of protection they feel appropriate.
(Not to sure about the APNIC database, but the Asia-Pacific region has
its own cultural mores and specific background as well.)

I get the impression that LDAP/X.500 was designed with a specific
corporate and/or governmental organizational structure in mind.  I don't
necessarily think this maps very well on to the anarchy that is the
Internet.  I could be wrong, but saying "All of this stuff (global WHOIS
included) really needs to go into LDAP" is a pretty strong statement in my
mind, and needs to be defended, not stated as a truism.

--
Shane Kerr <shane at ripe.net>
Database Software Engineer
RIPE NCC
+31 20 535 4427



From mborchers at splitrock.net  Thu Jan  4 11:59:30 2001
From: mborchers at splitrock.net (Mark Borchers)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:59:30 -0600 
Subject: Just to clarify
Message-ID: <CA47B6D616C0D211B92E0008C7C5657C0852894C@hscmpxsrvcl01>

> Many times, it is just a minor error in the SWIP template, 
> and shouldn't
> be a big deal.  However, would there ever be a situation where the
> upstream would not want the downstream to be 
> assigning/allocating?  Should
> ARIN be responsible for notifying the upstream?  We have be processing
> these request because we do not want to delay the 
> downstream's business.  
> Do we need a written policy to define how we should be 
> processing such a
> request?


IMHO, ARIN's responsibility is to follow its own process.  In
other words, to operate on the premise that when the originator
of a SWIP says "allocation" they mean "allocation" and when they
say "assignment" they mean "assignment".  

If the SWIP is submitted with an error, the originator should
submit a correction. 


From alexk at tugger.net  Fri Jan  5 15:47:33 2001
From: alexk at tugger.net (Alex Kamantauskas)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:47:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Just to clarify : Conclusion?
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010104144111.00b714a0@mail.jbacher.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101051545020.15175-100000@varese.appliedtheory.com>

On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, J Bacher wrote:

>> The downstream isn't going to use the address space any differently
>> just because they can or can't submit reassignment information.  The issue
>> isn't whether or not downstreams should be forced into obeying negotiated
>> terms, the issue is how close the database should reflect reality.  ARIN
>> will never be able to enforce how already-allocated address space is used,
>> anyone pretending that the A/S field protects anything but the database is
>> fooling themselves.
> 
> The downstream -is- going to use the address space differently.  As a 
> provider, I require justification prior to allocating or assigning network 
> blocks just as ARIN expects such.  I also expect those that I allocate 
> network blocks to -- to submit the appropriate SWIPs which is used to 
> verify the justification.
> 

 I agree with this point

>> An organization bent on reselling services even when it has been
>> explicitly prohibited is going to do so regardless of their ability to
>> document their actions with SWIP.  At least if they are permitted to SWIP
>> and do so, their upstream will have evidence that they have broken the
>> contract.
> 
> If the upstream provided an assignment, then ARIN ought to honor that 
> assignment and not leave it to the whim of the downstream to change that.
> 
> The change from assignment to allocation issue belongs between the upstream 
> and downstream.
> 

 And I would add that it is up to the upstream to notify ARIN of the
 change between assignment and allocation.  With certain exceptions of
 course, such as if the upstream and downstream have agreed to change the
 relationship, but the upstream has not informed ARIN, then the downstream
 should be free to contact ARIN and let them know of the relationship
 change (at which point I would assume ARIN would contact the upstream for
 verification).

-- 
Alex Kamantauskas
alexk at tugger.net



From richardj at arin.net  Tue Jan 16 09:00:26 2001
From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:00:26 -0500
Subject: Just to clarify
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101051545020.15175-100000@varese.appliedtheory.com>
Message-ID: <006201c07fc4$adfc8920$e2fc95c0@arin.net>

ARIN has reviewed the discussions that have taken place
on this mailing list in regard to the practice of adding
maintainer IDs to reassigned records.  We would like to 
thank everyone who participated in this discussion.  

Going forward, the practice of the ARIN registration staff 
will be the following:  

(Note we are using the well written summary provided by David Huberman)

If a provider who has been assigned address space from their upstream
wishes to assign address space further downstream, they are encouraged to
petition their upstream provider to re-SWIP the address space as an
allocation. If the upstream provider is unresponsive, the downstream
provider may then petition ARIN to enact this change. ARIN will make its
best attempt to contact the upstream provider to obtain their permission.
If the provider declines permission, ARIN will notify the petitioner as
such. If the provider is unresponsive after 10 business days, ARIN will
accede to the petitioner's request and notify the upstream of the
change(s).

Richard Jimmerson
Director of Operations
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


From mark-list at mentovai.com  Tue Jan 16 09:30:19 2001
From: mark-list at mentovai.com (Mark Mentovai)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:30:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Just to clarify
In-Reply-To: <006201c07fc4$adfc8920$e2fc95c0@arin.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0101160926370.17920-100000@oak.ggn.net>

Richard Jimmerson wrote:
>If a provider who has been assigned address space from their upstream
>wishes to assign address space further downstream, they are encouraged to
>petition their upstream provider to re-SWIP the address space as an
>allocation. If the upstream provider is unresponsive, the downstream
>provider may then petition ARIN to enact this change. ARIN will make its
>best attempt to contact the upstream provider to obtain their permission.
>If the provider declines permission, ARIN will notify the petitioner as
>such. If the provider is unresponsive after 10 business days, ARIN will
>accede to the petitioner's request and notify the upstream of the
>change(s).

I think this keeps everyone happy.  Thank you for considering public input.

Two things to clarify: how long must a petitioning organization wait after
contacting its upstream provider before contacting ARIN directly?

Can SWIPs be modified by the upstream to change directly from S to A, or is
the upstream required to delete the assignment and then create a new
allocation?

Mark



From richardj at arin.net  Tue Jan 16 10:34:21 2001
From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:34:21 -0500
Subject: Just to clarify
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0101160926370.17920-100000@oak.ggn.net>
Message-ID: <008401c07fd1$cc3212e0$e2fc95c0@arin.net>

Hello Mark,

> Two things to clarify: how long must a petitioning 
> organization wait after
> contacting its upstream provider before contacting ARIN directly?

We would like the petitioning organization to wait for at least
a few business days before contacting ARIN.  As stated before, ARIN 
will wait 10 business days when we contact the upstream provider
ourselves.

> Can SWIPs be modified by the upstream to change directly from 
> S to A, or is
> the upstream required to delete the assignment and then create a new
> allocation?

At the upstream provider's request, ARIN will modify their reassignment
record from S to A without multiple SWIP template submissions.  We
will require this request be documented via email before we will make
the change, however.

Richard Jimmerson
Director of Operations
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Mentovai [mailto:mark-list at mentovai.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 9:30 AM
> To: Richard Jimmerson
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Just to clarify
> 
> 
> Richard Jimmerson wrote:
> >If a provider who has been assigned address space from their upstream
> >wishes to assign address space further downstream, they are 
> encouraged to
> >petition their upstream provider to re-SWIP the address space as an
> >allocation. If the upstream provider is unresponsive, the downstream
> >provider may then petition ARIN to enact this change. ARIN 
> will make its
> >best attempt to contact the upstream provider to obtain 
> their permission.
> >If the provider declines permission, ARIN will notify the 
> petitioner as
> >such. If the provider is unresponsive after 10 business 
> days, ARIN will
> >accede to the petitioner's request and notify the upstream of the
> >change(s).
> 
> I think this keeps everyone happy.  Thank you for considering 
> public input.
> 
> Two things to clarify: how long must a petitioning 
> organization wait after
> contacting its upstream provider before contacting ARIN directly?
> 
> Can SWIPs be modified by the upstream to change directly from 
> S to A, or is
> the upstream required to delete the assignment and then create a new
> allocation?
> 
> Mark
> 


From richardj at arin.net  Tue Jan 16 10:38:37 2001
From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:38:37 -0500
Subject: Just to clarify
In-Reply-To: <NEBBKOFCILLGKABBFLAJMEOOCGAA.thinman@clp.cw.net>
Message-ID: <008501c07fd2$65c5dea0$e2fc95c0@arin.net>

Hello Tanya,

> how does ARIN
> verify that the downstream actually attempted to contact 
> their upstream?

ARIN will ask for a forwarded copy of the email they sent to
their upstream provider.  We understand some petitioners may
try to skip this step of the process by giving us false
information, but ARIN will ensure the upstream provider has
ample time to consider the petitioners request when we contact
them ourselves.

Richard Jimmerson
Director of Operations
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tanya Hinman [mailto:thinman at clp.cw.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 9:53 AM
> To: richardj at arin.net; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Just to clarify
> 
> 
> This sounds like a reasonable plan. Just one question though, 
> how does ARIN
> verify that the downstream actually attempted to contact 
> their upstream?
> 
> Thank you,
> Tanya
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Richard Jimmerson
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 9:00 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Just to clarify
> 
> 
> ARIN has reviewed the discussions that have taken place
> on this mailing list in regard to the practice of adding
> maintainer IDs to reassigned records.  We would like to
> thank everyone who participated in this discussion.
> 
> Going forward, the practice of the ARIN registration staff
> will be the following:
> 
> (Note we are using the well written summary provided by David 
> Huberman)
> 
> If a provider who has been assigned address space from their upstream
> wishes to assign address space further downstream, they are 
> encouraged to
> petition their upstream provider to re-SWIP the address space as an
> allocation. If the upstream provider is unresponsive, the downstream
> provider may then petition ARIN to enact this change. ARIN 
> will make its
> best attempt to contact the upstream provider to obtain their 
> permission.
> If the provider declines permission, ARIN will notify the 
> petitioner as
> such. If the provider is unresponsive after 10 business days, 
> ARIN will
> accede to the petitioner's request and notify the upstream of the
> change(s).
> 
> Richard Jimmerson
> Director of Operations
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


From jb at jbacher.com  Tue Jan 16 10:52:36 2001
From: jb at jbacher.com (J Bacher)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:52:36 -0600
Subject: Just to clarify
In-Reply-To: <008501c07fd2$65c5dea0$e2fc95c0@arin.net>
References: <NEBBKOFCILLGKABBFLAJMEOOCGAA.thinman@clp.cw.net>
Message-ID: <4.2.2.20010116095115.00bb1e90@mail.jbacher.com>

At 10:38 AM 1/16/01 -0500, you wrote:
>ARIN will ask for a forwarded copy of the email they sent to
>their upstream provider.  We understand some petitioners may
>try to skip this step of the process by giving us false
>information, but ARIN will ensure the upstream provider has
>ample time to consider the petitioners request when we contact
>them ourselves.

What is "ample time"?  Five business days?  Ten?



From richardj at arin.net  Tue Jan 16 10:59:20 2001
From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:59:20 -0500
Subject: Just to clarify
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010116095115.00bb1e90@mail.jbacher.com>
Message-ID: <008901c07fd5$4a0b73c0$e2fc95c0@arin.net>

Hello,

> What is "ample time"?  Five business days?  Ten?

This was defined as 10 business days in the message
sent to the list this morning.

Richard Jimmerson
Director of Operations
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J Bacher [mailto:jb at jbacher.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 10:53 AM
> To: richardj at arin.net
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Just to clarify
> 
> 
> At 10:38 AM 1/16/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >ARIN will ask for a forwarded copy of the email they sent to
> >their upstream provider.  We understand some petitioners may
> >try to skip this step of the process by giving us false
> >information, but ARIN will ensure the upstream provider has
> >ample time to consider the petitioners request when we contact
> >them ourselves.
> 
> What is "ample time"?  Five business days?  Ten?
> 


From jb at jbacher.com  Tue Jan 16 11:20:28 2001
From: jb at jbacher.com (J Bacher)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:20:28 -0600
Subject: Just to clarify
In-Reply-To: <008801c07fd5$245e5f20$e2fc95c0@arin.net>
References: <4.2.2.20010116095115.00bb1e90@mail.jbacher.com>
Message-ID: <4.2.2.20010116101656.00b8cc30@mail.jbacher.com>

At 10:58 AM 1/16/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
> > What is "ample time"?  Five business days?  Ten?
>
>This was defined as 10 business days in the message
>sent to the list this morning.

I'm not referring to the time ARIN gives the upstream to respond to its 
request.  I'm referring to the time ARIN requires the downstream to give to 
the upstream prior to its involvement.



From richardj at arin.net  Tue Jan 16 11:31:06 2001
From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:31:06 -0500
Subject: Just to clarify
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20010116101656.00b8cc30@mail.jbacher.com>
Message-ID: <008b01c07fd9$ba960ac0$e2fc95c0@arin.net>

Hello,

> I'm not referring to the time ARIN gives the upstream to 
> respond to its 
> request.  I'm referring to the time ARIN requires the 
> downstream to give to 
> the upstream prior to its involvement.

We would like the petitioning organization to wait for at least
a few business days before contacting ARIN.  If the petitioner
does not receive a response from their upstream provider and
contacts ARIN, it is likely a week will have passed before ARIN
contacts the upstream provider.

Richard Jimmerson
Director of Operations
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of J
> Bacher
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:20 AM
> To: richardj at arin.net
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: Just to clarify
> 
> 
> At 10:58 AM 1/16/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> > > What is "ample time"?  Five business days?  Ten?
> >
> >This was defined as 10 business days in the message
> >sent to the list this morning.
> 
> I'm not referring to the time ARIN gives the upstream to 
> respond to its 
> request.  I'm referring to the time ARIN requires the 
> downstream to give to 
> the upstream prior to its involvement.
> 


From louie at equinix.com  Tue Jan 16 14:38:42 2001
From: louie at equinix.com (Louis Lee)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:38:42 -0800
Subject: Just to clarify
Message-ID: <4FA6CECCC8A3D41186F700B0D0784FF40627F5@hq-exchange.corp.equinix.com>

I also thank you and the registration staff, Richard, for considering the
suggestions put forth in the discussion list.  Also I did not actively
participate in the discussion, many of my thoughts were expressed by others.



It is wise for the registration staff to not specify exactly how much time a
downstream must wait for a response from their upstream before they petition
to ARIN.  ARIN can not, and should not, dictate what the turn-around time of
any upstream is for their own customer.  However, a message from ARIN
carries with it a sense of urgency that deserves a reply within the
specified 10 business days.



I trust that the registration staff does not consider anything more than 2
weeks to be a reasonable amount of time that a downstream customer should
wait for an initial response from their upstream provider. :)



Louie

--------------------------------

Louis Lee

Member of the Technical Staff

Equinix, Inc.

http://www.equinix.com/





-----Original Message-----

From: Richard Jimmerson [mailto:richardj at arin.net]

Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 8:31 AM

To: 'J Bacher'

Cc: ppml at arin.net

Subject: RE: Just to clarify



Hello,



> I'm not referring to the time ARIN gives the upstream to 

> respond to its request.  I'm referring to the time ARIN

> requires the downstream to give to the upstream prior to

> its involvement.



We would like the petitioning organization to wait for at least

a few business days before contacting ARIN.  If the petitioner

does not receive a response from their upstream provider and

contacts ARIN, it is likely a week will have passed before ARIN

contacts the upstream provider.



Richard Jimmerson

Director of Operations

American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


From alexk at tugger.net  Fri Jan 19 11:08:51 2001
From: alexk at tugger.net (Alex Kamantauskas)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:08:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101191107060.27733-100000@varese.appliedtheory.com>


 I am wondering if ARIN has an allocation policy concerning dial-up modem
 pools.  I have a few customers requesting network blocks, and in their
 justifications they have "dial pools" listed.  Is there a certain ratio
 of users to modems that I should keep an eye out for?  In some cases, I
 have suspicions that the customer could only justify X addresses, so they
 added Y modems in a "dial up pool" to beef up their requested numbers.

-- 
Alex Kamantauskas
alexk at tugger.net



From jlewis at lewis.org  Fri Jan 19 10:56:55 2001
From: jlewis at lewis.org (jlewis at lewis.org)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:56:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101191107060.27733-100000@varese.appliedtheory.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101191050130.6400-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Alex Kamantauskas wrote:

>  I am wondering if ARIN has an allocation policy concerning dial-up modem
>  pools.  I have a few customers requesting network blocks, and in their
>  justifications they have "dial pools" listed.  Is there a certain ratio
>  of users to modems that I should keep an eye out for?  In some cases, I
>  have suspicions that the customer could only justify X addresses, so they
>  added Y modems in a "dial up pool" to beef up their requested numbers.

User:modem ratios, IMO, should be irrelevant.  If you have the lines and
the ports, you should be able to reserve an IP per port.  Anything less
runs the risk of not working properly when/if the access server fills up.

So do these customers have the dial hardware to justify the "dial pools"
they're listing?  In past dealings with ARIN to request more space, I've
had to justify each dial pool by listing what city it serves and how many
ports the hardware using the pool has.

It'd be nice if we could get away with giving everyone a static IP (as
they do in some other countries), as that would solve certain abuse
issues.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*|  I route
 System Administrator        |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net                |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________



From richardj at arin.net  Fri Jan 19 12:51:07 2001
From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:51:07 -0500
Subject: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101191107060.27733-100000@varese.appliedtheory.com>
Message-ID: <002901c08240$6788a4a0$e2fc95c0@arin.net>

Hello Alex,

When allocating IP address space to your downstream customers
for their dial pools it is important to pay attention to the
the users to modems ratio to ensure they are not assigning
static IP addresses to their dial-up customers.  Although it
is important to make sure they are making dynamic assignments,
it is also important to take their number of simultaneous
users during peak usage hours into consideration.

Richard Jimmerson
Director of Operations
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)





> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On 
> Behalf Of Alex
> Kamantauskas
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 11:09 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools
> 
> 
> 
>  I am wondering if ARIN has an allocation policy concerning 
> dial-up modem
>  pools.  I have a few customers requesting network blocks, 
> and in their
>  justifications they have "dial pools" listed.  Is there a 
> certain ratio
>  of users to modems that I should keep an eye out for?  In 
> some cases, I
>  have suspicions that the customer could only justify X 
> addresses, so they
>  added Y modems in a "dial up pool" to beef up their 
> requested numbers.
> 
> -- 
> Alex Kamantauskas
> alexk at tugger.net


From andy at tigerteam.net  Fri Jan 19 06:49:47 2001
From: andy at tigerteam.net (Andy)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:49:47 +0000 (/etc/localtime)
Subject: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools
In-Reply-To: <002901c08240$6788a4a0$e2fc95c0@arin.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101191147591.5265-100000@vision.tigerteam.net>


I disagree. If they have 20 modems, there are twenty IPs. I don't care if
there are only 20 users. The ratio is IP to modem and it should be 1:1.

andy

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Richard Jimmerson wrote:

> Hello Alex,
> 
> When allocating IP address space to your downstream customers
> for their dial pools it is important to pay attention to the
> the users to modems ratio to ensure they are not assigning
> static IP addresses to their dial-up customers.  Although it
> is important to make sure they are making dynamic assignments,
> it is also important to take their number of simultaneous
> users during peak usage hours into consideration.
> 
> Richard Jimmerson
> Director of Operations
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On 
> > Behalf Of Alex
> > Kamantauskas
> > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 11:09 AM
> > To: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  I am wondering if ARIN has an allocation policy concerning 
> > dial-up modem
> >  pools.  I have a few customers requesting network blocks, 
> > and in their
> >  justifications they have "dial pools" listed.  Is there a 
> > certain ratio
> >  of users to modems that I should keep an eye out for?  In 
> > some cases, I
> >  have suspicions that the customer could only justify X 
> > addresses, so they
> >  added Y modems in a "dial up pool" to beef up their 
> > requested numbers.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Alex Kamantauskas
> > alexk at tugger.net
> 



From ahp at hilander.com  Fri Jan 19 13:05:49 2001
From: ahp at hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:05:49 -0700
Subject: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101191147591.5265-100000@vision.tigerteam.net>
Message-ID: <3A6881FD.A77A78B2@hilander.com>

Andy wrote:
> 
> I disagree. If they have 20 modems, there are twenty IPs. I don't care if
> there are only 20 users. The ratio is IP to modem and it should be 1:1.

I believe that is why Richard specifically mentioned peak utilization.  If
there are 20 modems but 6 of them are only ever in use at a given time, that
is a waste of both modems and IP addresses.  It isn't ARIN's business if the
company is wasting money on modems, but it is ARIN's business if the company
is wasting IP addresses.

Alec

-- 
Alec H. Peterson - ahp at hilander.com
Staff Scientist
CenterGate Research Group - http://www.centergate.com
"Technology so advanced, even _we_ don't understand it!"


From andy at tigerteam.net  Fri Jan 19 07:02:31 2001
From: andy at tigerteam.net (Andy)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:02:31 +0000 (/etc/localtime)
Subject: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools
In-Reply-To: <3A6881FD.A77A78B2@hilander.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101191158500.5265-100000@vision.tigerteam.net>



On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Alec H. Peterson wrote:

> Andy wrote:
> > 
> > I disagree. If they have 20 modems, there are twenty IPs. I don't care if
> > there are only 20 users. The ratio is IP to modem and it should be 1:1.
> 
> I believe that is why Richard specifically mentioned peak utilization.  If
> there are 20 modems but 6 of them are only ever in use at a given time, that
> is a waste of both modems and IP addresses.  It isn't ARIN's business if the
> company is wasting money on modems, but it is ARIN's business if the company
> is wasting IP addresses.

I agree, if there is some sort of internal policy that the company
has imposed on itself that states only 6 modems are in use at one time,
then sure, pool of 6 ips. Most people would just spring for 6 modems
though as opposed to 20 I would think. Its sematics. If I have 20
workstations, but only 6 can be turned on at the same time...

andy




From dan at netrail.net  Fri Jan 19 13:09:22 2001
From: dan at netrail.net (Daniel Golding)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:09:22 -0500
Subject: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101191147591.5265-100000@vision.tigerteam.net>
Message-ID: <FHEBKELAPEKHCBCFIEBBAEBNCBAA.dan@netrail.net>

Yes. However, if there are 500 modems and 2500 users, there should be only
500 IP addresses. The alternative would be to have 2500 IPs (i.e. static
addressing). This is, of course, bad mojo.

- Daniel Golding

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Andy
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 6:50 AM
> To: Richard Jimmerson
> Cc: 'Alex Kamantauskas'; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools
>
>
>
> I disagree. If they have 20 modems, there are twenty IPs. I don't care if
> there are only 20 users. The ratio is IP to modem and it should be 1:1.
>
> andy
>
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Richard Jimmerson wrote:
>
> > Hello Alex,
> >
> > When allocating IP address space to your downstream customers
> > for their dial pools it is important to pay attention to the
> > the users to modems ratio to ensure they are not assigning
> > static IP addresses to their dial-up customers.  Although it
> > is important to make sure they are making dynamic assignments,
> > it is also important to take their number of simultaneous
> > users during peak usage hours into consideration.
> >
> > Richard Jimmerson
> > Director of Operations
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On
> > > Behalf Of Alex
> > > Kamantauskas
> > > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 11:09 AM
> > > To: ppml at arin.net
> > > Subject: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  I am wondering if ARIN has an allocation policy concerning
> > > dial-up modem
> > >  pools.  I have a few customers requesting network blocks,
> > > and in their
> > >  justifications they have "dial pools" listed.  Is there a
> > > certain ratio
> > >  of users to modems that I should keep an eye out for?  In
> > > some cases, I
> > >  have suspicions that the customer could only justify X
> > > addresses, so they
> > >  added Y modems in a "dial up pool" to beef up their
> > > requested numbers.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alex Kamantauskas
> > > alexk at tugger.net
> >
>



From andy at tigerteam.net  Fri Jan 19 07:05:50 2001
From: andy at tigerteam.net (Andy)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:05:50 +0000 (/etc/localtime)
Subject: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101191158500.5265-100000@vision.tigerteam.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101191204250.5265-100000@vision.tigerteam.net>


Replying to my own post:
 
> 
> I agree, if there is some sort of internal policy that the company
> has imposed on itself that states only 6 modems are in use at one time,
> then sure, pool of 6 ips. Most people would just spring for 6 modems
> though as opposed to 20 I would think. Its sematics. If I have 20
> workstations, but only 6 can be turned on at the same time...


After an extra 30 seconds of thought I think I see your point. Let me add 
user:modem ratio should never be more modems then users as far as IPs go.

andy



From cscott at gaslightmedia.com  Fri Jan 19 15:09:28 2001
From: cscott at gaslightmedia.com (Charles Scott)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:09:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101191204250.5265-100000@vision.tigerteam.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101191434110.6047-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>


  No offence guys, but I think it amounts to intereference in the
operations of the business if ARIN were to start saying how many modems
can be deployed, what the user to modem radio should be or that a provider
shouldn't assign static IP's for dial-in users. 
  I admit that allocating static IPs for all dial-in users is just plain
wastefull and it should certainly be written into the policy that doing
this for no good reason may cause problem with getting address space. (Of
course here are good reasons for some static allocations.) I would thing
however that getting into the game of determining what's a proper user to
modem ratio is out of line. Also, it would seem that deploying additional
modems in advance of demand (as unusual as that would seem to some
providers) is a very prudent thing to do and should not be discouraged. 

Chuck Scott








From dan at netrail.net  Fri Jan 19 15:12:17 2001
From: dan at netrail.net (Daniel Golding)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:12:17 -0500
Subject: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101191434110.6047-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>
Message-ID: <FHEBKELAPEKHCBCFIEBBKEBPCBAA.dan@netrail.net>

Charles,

ARIN never gets involved in user to modem ratios. They get involved in Modem
to IP ratios, which is proper, and User to IP ratios, which is even more
important.

- Daniel Golding

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Charles Scott
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 3:09 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools
>
>
>
>   No offence guys, but I think it amounts to intereference in the
> operations of the business if ARIN were to start saying how many modems
> can be deployed, what the user to modem radio should be or that a provider
> shouldn't assign static IP's for dial-in users.
>   I admit that allocating static IPs for all dial-in users is just plain
> wastefull and it should certainly be written into the policy that doing
> this for no good reason may cause problem with getting address space. (Of
> course here are good reasons for some static allocations.) I would thing
> however that getting into the game of determining what's a proper user to
> modem ratio is out of line. Also, it would seem that deploying additional
> modems in advance of demand (as unusual as that would seem to some
> providers) is a very prudent thing to do and should not be discouraged.
>
> Chuck Scott
>
>
>
>
>
>



From cscott at gaslightmedia.com  Fri Jan 19 15:29:19 2001
From: cscott at gaslightmedia.com (Charles Scott)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:29:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools
In-Reply-To: <FHEBKELAPEKHCBCFIEBBKEBPCBAA.dan@netrail.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101191523390.23797-100000@harbor.gaslightmedia.com>


Daniel:
  User to IP ratios can vary all over the map for a number of reasons,
many very legitimate. I think any policies need to be carefull written so
as to not be missinterpreted, and it would be unfortunate if a policy that
implied some acceptable range of user to IP ratio made new allocations
difficult for organizations that legitimately run out of the norm.

Chuck Scott


On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Daniel Golding wrote:

> Charles,
> 
> ARIN never gets involved in user to modem ratios. They get involved in Modem
> to IP ratios, which is proper, and User to IP ratios, which is even more
> important.
> 
> - Daniel Golding
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> >   No offence guys, but I think it amounts to intereference in the
> > operations of the business if ARIN were to start saying how many modems
> > can be deployed, what the user to modem radio should be or that a provider
> > shouldn't assign static IP's for dial-in users.
> >   I admit that allocating static IPs for all dial-in users is just plain
> > wastefull and it should certainly be written into the policy that doing
> > this for no good reason may cause problem with getting address space. (Of
> > course here are good reasons for some static allocations.) I would thing
> > however that getting into the game of determining what's a proper user to
> > modem ratio is out of line. Also, it would seem that deploying additional
> > modems in advance of demand (as unusual as that would seem to some
> > providers) is a very prudent thing to do and should not be discouraged.
> >
> > Chuck Scott



From memsvcs at arin.net  Fri Jan 19 16:01:45 2001
From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:01:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: ARIN's April 1-4 Public Policy and Members Meetings
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.05.10101191557250.11868-100000@ops.arin.net>


Make your plans to attend ARIN's spring 2001 Public Policy and Members
Meetings. Sponsored by Global Crossing, this 4-day event will be held on
April 1-4 in San Francisco at the Hyatt Hotel at Fisherman's Wharf.

New details and registration information are now available at the
following website link: http://www.arin.net/meetings/index.html 

 - Read about the EARLY BIRD registration contest for 
   ARIN members!
 - View the tentative meeting schedule, noting the 
   addition of Sunday afternoon tutorials. Indicate 
   your interest in participating in working group 
   sessions and suggest additional discussion topics.
 - Plan to attend the ASO General Assembly meeting 
   on Wednesday afternoon.
 - Register for ARIN's Second Annual Foosball 
   Tournament on Sunday evening.
 - Sign up for the Monday evening social event.
 - Use the registration form to indicate your 
   attendance at all meetings and activities.

We look forward to a great turn out of ARIN members and those interested
in IP address policy. Encourage your colleagues to join you in San
Francisco.

Please Contact Member Services at memsvcs at arin.net if you have any
questions or you need additional information.

Regards,

Susan Hamlin
Director, Member Services




From nameeriar at gt.ca  Sun Jan 21 20:53:29 2001
From: nameeriar at gt.ca (Nasir Ameeriar)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:53:29 -0800
Subject: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools
Message-ID: <0309AE123C31D4119B1C00D0B747B22B024E56CA@yyzxch01.gt.ca>

sorry do you know how I could get my name out of this list please...? thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: jlewis at lewis.org [mailto:jlewis at lewis.org]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 10:57 AM
To: Alex Kamantauskas
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: ARIN's policies concerning dial-up pools


On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Alex Kamantauskas wrote:

>  I am wondering if ARIN has an allocation policy concerning dial-up modem
>  pools.  I have a few customers requesting network blocks, and in their
>  justifications they have "dial pools" listed.  Is there a certain ratio
>  of users to modems that I should keep an eye out for?  In some cases, I
>  have suspicions that the customer could only justify X addresses, so they
>  added Y modems in a "dial up pool" to beef up their requested numbers.

User:modem ratios, IMO, should be irrelevant.  If you have the lines and
the ports, you should be able to reserve an IP per port.  Anything less
runs the risk of not working properly when/if the access server fills up.

So do these customers have the dial hardware to justify the "dial pools"
they're listing?  In past dealings with ARIN to request more space, I've
had to justify each dial pool by listing what city it serves and how many
ports the hardware using the pool has.

It'd be nice if we could get away with giving everyone a static IP (as
they do in some other countries), as that would solve certain abuse
issues.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*|  I route
 System Administrator        |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net                |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________