Just to clarify : Conclusion?
jb at jbacher.com
Thu Jan 4 15:49:23 EST 2001
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
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
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML