Just to clarify : Conclusion?

Alex Kamantauskas alexk at tugger.net
Fri Jan 5 15:47:33 EST 2001

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

Alex Kamantauskas
alexk at tugger.net

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list