ARIN-PPML Message

Anonymity...is it justification???

If the customer is requesting 20 */28 then he should be able to justify
20 * 16 addresses
A question I would ask is how many IP's are they binding to each
interface? If it's multiple (i.e. 20) then I would question the
technical need. 

If they actually have a large network but just want to number it in this
de-aggregated manner, splitting it into 20 physical subnets, then I
wouldn't see an issue from an address policy side.

So if he has a network that would normally require that amount of
address space, i.e. because the number of hosts/interfaces to be
numbered is large enough, then my opinion is that how their ISP assigns
those addresses is an internal matter. An issue for their own internal
routing folks.

John Crain 

This is my own opinion only. So don't blame the people I work for! 
(They're just to blame for everything other issue on the planet)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Jill Kulpinski
> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 3:43 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Anonymity...is it justification???
> 
> 
> 
> > Hello,
> > We have had a few cases over the past few months that I 
> would like to 
> > make sure I understand ARIN's policy regarding.  I would 
> also like to 
> > hear the opinions of the community.
> > 
> > Bob wants address space, say 20 /28s that are as 
> 'non-contiguous' as 
> > possible (ideal is unique first octet #,  lesser preference 
> is unique 
> > in second octet, etc.) in order to 'mask' themselves from 
> the person 
> > they are querying so the recipient can not block out a range of 
> > address space and evade Bob.  Bob is performing what would be 
> > considered 'good spam' but I do not think that it is necessarily my 
> > call to be the internet ethics board regarding good and bad 
> queries.  
> > If this uniqueness is required for Bob to be successful as an 
> > enterprise...they are technically justified as there is not 
> currently 
> > a better means of appearing random...does the Hosting Provider have 
> > justification in assignment of non-contiguous space?
> > 
> > John  has a server that he wants to appear to other people as 50 
> > servers and therefore he want 50 addresses for one physical 
> device.  
> > He is trying to access URLs that his users have 
> specifically requested 
> > to be signed up for (i.e. newsletter type deals), but with 
> the amount 
> > of mail John sends on behalf of his Customers from one IP to these 
> > sites, the site may block the IP from the mass mailings.  Does the 
> > Hosting Provider allow multiple addresses per one physical 
> server to 
> > assist in the distribution of mail by not flooding a site with 
> > thousands of queries from one address?
> > 
> > So, is the requirement from a business perspective to mask one's 
> > address through IP randomization of different forms appropriate to 
> > accept?  I am having a hard time knowing where to draw the line at 
> > saying 'nope...not good justification'.  I get the response from 
> > Prospects that they can not do business without being able 
> to appear 
> > anonymous and I do not necessarily feel okay with then telling them 
> > good-bye or recommending a different business.  We have 
> been working 
> > to come up with alternative options for these Customers, 
> but then it 
> > gets to the point of almost designing their network 
> architecture and 
> > systems which was not the aim.  Does the community have any 
> > suggestions on technology available that can provide anonymity  
> > without using a mass amount or dis-contiguous addresses?  
> What are the 
> > thoughts regarding this idea for justification of address 
> space?  Is 
> > there an ARIN policy that applies at this time?  If not, do 
> we need to 
> > develop one?
> > 
> > Any input (constructive please) would be helpful and thanks 
> for your 
> > time. Jill Kulpinski
> > 
> > 
>