[arin-discuss] Dean -vs- ARIN... again (Re: The joy of SWIPping)

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chad Kissinger [mailto:chad at onr.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 1:16 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt; tkersnick at transworldix.net; 
> arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Dean -vs- ARIN... again (Re: The 
> joy of SWIPping)
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that Scott and now you have said you were 
> allowed to get new IP space without publicly publishing your 
> customer's real data in SWIP.

Hold on there.  I said we were told that we COULD just submit a
spreadsheet, not that this is what we DID.  Also, your implying
that we never had any intention of publically publishing when
the opposite is the case.  I frankly believe in publically publishing
statically assigned RESIDENTIAL ip addresses, on the theory that
anyone requesting a static IP for a residence is intending to
run a public server, and I know that is not a view that is at
all popular these days.

In atual fact we DID have customer data SWIPed, just not ALL of
our customers, for the simple reason that many of our customers
only had a /29 and a whole lot of them only had( and have) a /32.
We have a lot of DSL you see - and a very great many of them are business
DSL who only have a /32.  We do not automatically knee-jerk hand
out /29's or larger to anyone that buys business services on DSL, you see.
We also had some SWIPS that were older
and innacurate, and a number of them that were for small direct
assignments that we were routing where the contact info was old.
We also had some that were for /24's where we had subsequently
split the /24 but not updated the SWIP.

After the allocation we completely threw out ALL SWIPS and
went to RWHOIS.  Since the allocation was to replace a bunch of
non contiguous subnets, the SWIPS all had to be replaced anyhow
if we were going to keep doing SWIPS.

This was all 4 years ago and frankly the only real issues associated
with it are the periodic attacks on the rwhois server by jerkoffs on
the Internet looking for servers to add to their zombie networks.

I would expect that ARIN would more
closely scrutinize applications today with the upcoming IPv4
runout.  I would ALSO expect that ARIN would more closely scrutinize
"fast uptake" people who put in allocation after allocation
request for ever more subnets.

It may be different in your market but in our market Internet
service is steady-state, our market has the highest penetration of
internet service and has reached an effective saturation - it
is at the point now where a local major ISP who was simply giving
service away for free, has failed simply because they could not
get enough customers for their advertizing-driven business model
to work.  As a result it would be completely uncharacteristic for
ANY isps in our market to be requesting allocation after allocation.

Perhaps ARIN is pushing back on you precisely because your allocation
rate is not characteristic.

It could be the same principle of the credit card companies who deny
credit card authorizations on accounts that have plenty of credit,
merely due to profiling of spending history.

>  Michael and I have both been 
> denied new IP space until we published the information.  I'm 
> not sure whether I should hope to be treated like you were, 
> or whether you should worry that you'll next be treated like 
> I was... but what I do know is that if the policy was clear, 
> specific and uniformly followed, neither of us would have to worry.
>

And it would be a lot easier for speculators to obtain large
quantities of IPv4 and I don't think we want that.

Ted
 
> 
>  Onramp Access
> chad kissinger  |  president  |  onramp access, inc.
> p: 512.322.9200  |  f: 512.476.2878  |  www.onr.com
> your internet operations  |  built  |  deployed  |  managed
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:51 PM
> To: Chad Kissinger; tkersnick at transworldix.net; arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Dean -vs- ARIN... again (Re: The 
> joy of SWIPping)
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chad Kissinger [mailto:chad at onr.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:06 PM
> > To: Ted Mittelstaedt; tkersnick at transworldix.net; 
> > arin-discuss at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Dean -vs- ARIN... again (Re: The joy of 
> > SWIPping)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > There IS no "issue at hand"
> >
> > I disagree, the issue is whether or not you have to put specific 
> > customer information in RWHOIS or SWIP, I haven't seen anyone from 
> > ARIN answer that yet.  You can assert anything you want, 
> but I want to 
> > hear it from the people who are going to approve/deny my 
> next IP space 
> > request.
> >
> 
> Last time we got space the ARIN hostmaster that did our 
> request told me to supply justification EITHER on a 
> spreadsheet OR on SWIP.  Of course, that is just my word on 
> it, not anything written down.
> 
> > >The OP thus far has failed to show where he is required in
> > the NRPM to
> > >disclose competitive/prooprietary information in SWIP.
> >
> > >From the NRPM, I find the following two relevant passages.
> >
> > "4.2.4.1. Utilization percentage (80%)
> > ISPs must have efficiently utilized all previous allocations and at 
> > least 80% of their most recent allocation in order to receive 
> > additional space. This includes all space reassigned to their 
> > customers. The reassignment information section of the ARIN ISP 
> > Network Request Template should be completed for all address blocks 
> > that have been allocated to your organization. In the 
> template, line 
> > 1b. Assigned: information will be verified via SWIP/RWHOIS and 1c. 
> > Reserved: should be used to indicate internal network information.
> 
> I don't see anything in there that dictates that SWIP or 
> RWHOIS must contain competitive/proprietary information.  
> Nothing in the manual says WHAT data is required to be in 
> SWIP.  And furthermore if you spent any time working with 
> rwhois you will find that virtually all fields in RWHOS are 
> administrator-determined, this is per the rwhois standard.
> 
> The line is:
> 
> "...The reassignment information section of
>  the ARIN ISP Network Request Template should be completed 
> for  all address blocks that have been allocated to your  
> organization...."
> 
> it doesen't say HOW it's to be completed.
> 
> > Please note
> > that until your prior utilization is verified to meet the 80% 
> > requirement, ARIN can neither process nor approve a request for 
> > additional addresses."
> >
> > And
> >
> > 3.2 Distributed Information Server Use Requirements
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > "The distributed information service must return reassignment 
> > information for the IP address queried. The service may allow for 
> > privacy protections for customers.
> 
> Once more, NOTE THAT
> 
>  "...The service may allow for privacy protections for customers..."
> 
> is stated BEFORE the explicit mention of RESIDENTIAL users.  
> Meaning, that the service (swip/rwhois) may allow for privacy 
> protections for ALL customers, residential AND business.  It 
> is only in the more specific section on residential users 
> where specific fields, city, state, etc. are spelled out.
> 
> The NRPM is written in a manner that is deliberately vague on 
> the issue of what data must be in SWIP.  I suspect this is 
> intentional.
> 
> I think what is really making YOU uncomfortable is that the 
> NRPM is not black and white on what constitutes contact 
> information and what MUST be put in.
> 
> I personally WANT IT TO STAY that way.  Why?  Because, like 
> pornography, this kind of information is subjective and I 
> would rather give the ARIN staff of human beings the 
> authority to look at a SWIP entry and tell the person who 
> entered it that it's bogus and not usable for justification.  
> If you specify the info to the nth degree, then you take away 
> that from the ARIN staff and this also allows people to beat 
> ARIN over the head with the rules - they can meet the letter 
> of the rules but not the spirit.
> 
> You might ALSO consider the use of the word "should" instead of "must"
> 
> Unfortunately, the recent Policitally Correct movement has 
> done some damage to language, as people today write signs 
> that say "you shouldn't walk on the grass" rather than say 
> "your not permitted on the grass" and an entire generation 
> has been raised to believe that the word "should" and the 
> word "must" are identical.  They are not.  "must" states a 
> required condition, "should" states a condition that the 
> condition writer would really, really really like to make 
> required, but they know they have no authority to do so.
> 
> You might say, your legally compelled to do things you must 
> do, your morally compelled to do things you should do.
> 
> >
> > So, the question remains, do you have to put the true POC 
> information 
> > for each of your customers in SWIP and expose it to the 
> Internet and 
> > your competitors?
> >
> 
> No, you don't "have" to.  You "should".
> 
> Ted
> 
> 
>