[ppml] Question RE: Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignment w ith sponsorship

[william at elan.net]

I wonder how many times ARIN has contacted you to verify about templates 
for new ASN's your customers may have filled out when requesting ASN and 
listing you as contact person. Would never be a correct answer?

As far as I know, ARIN does not does not really do anything when it gets 
ASN request, it just collects it and assigns the number. Once you get it, 
there is nothing requiring you to use it or be multihomed or even when 
using it you could only be announcing your net through one provider. In 
short multihoming is not really verifyied by ARIN at all. 

Besides that very few actually update ASN records (or at least I'v never 
seen anybody do it beyond listing new email address maybe). Now another 
approach maybe to make new policies regarding ASN assignments that would 
mirror what I listed and require upstreams to actually verify their 
downstream ASN requests as well as some way to make sure all those listed 
ASN's are actually used and are not just requested just to get an ip block.

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Taylor, Stacy wrote:

> Hi All, 
> Speaking for the Office of IP Management for ICG only, I wonder why I would
> have to do more templates when multihoming information from two ISPs is
> required on the ASN request template.  Is my ASN not already in fact
> "sponsoring" the multihomer by including my information on the
> record/request?  
> 
> If the ASN registrant changes one or both of its ISPs, it is for the
> registrant to update their ARIN record, not the upstreams.
> 
> If we are to recommend a microallocation policy, I would like to see it
> linked to the ASN process, since you shouldn't have one without the other.
> 
> Stacy
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mury [mailto:mury at goldengate.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 9:36 AM
> To: Marla Azinger
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Question RE: Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignment
> with sponsorship
> 
> 
> 
> I've missed most of this discussion too, but it sure seems like it leaves
> a lot open for abuse, confusion, mistakes, etc.
> 
> Why can't ARIN check to make sure they have 2 upstreams by asking for
> contracts and bills the first time around, and at renewal time check some
> of the backbone routers to make sure their AS is being announced by two
> providers.  There are gobs of places that ARIN could check this from that
> would take 1 minute to do.  If for some reason it doesn't show up in the
> routing tables, then the ISP could provide bills.  If they can't provide
> bills proving they have two upstreams, yank the IPs.
> 
> Part of me is also against the /24 allocation in the first place.  I know
> what it feels like, since I was a little irked when I couldn't get space
> when we started out.  But in the end it wasn't the end of the world.
> Renumbering out of a /24 isn't a life ending task.  Sure, it sucks, and
> everyone would rather not do it, but hey almost all of us have had to deal
> with it and we all made it okay.
> 
> If you are multi-homed you need to contact your upstreams to announce the
> block anyway so it doesn't provide any benefit there.
> 
> Sorry to all those who disagree, it's just my two cents.
> 
> Mury
> 
> 
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Marla Azinger wrote:
> 
> > Hello-  I know I've missed alot of the discussion between the last
> > conference and up to this point...so please bear with me and the question
> I
> > have...
> >
> > Why is it necessary for an ISP to "sponsor" this?  So far...sponsorship
> > sounds like more of a headache than anything...I'm sure I'm missing
> > something because up to this point...I would just say my company isnt
> going
> > to participate in order to avoid...basically...all of it...we'v done fine
> > without this until now...
> >
> > I guess what I'm missing here is...how is a smaller telecom company that
> > provides internet access supposed to benefit from "sponsoring" this?  Is
> > there a benefit...or is this a bandaid for integrity issues?  I'm sure
> > there's a good list of reasons I'm missing...like I said I've missed most
> of
> > the discussion up to this point...but could someone provide a short and to
> > the point list of how we'd benefit from "sponsoring" this?
> >
> > Thank you for your patience and time
> > Marla
> > ELI IP Analyst
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I would rather not see this language. The policy states that ISP A or ISP
> B
> > must inform ARIN
> > when this happens. I know we can't depend on this to work, but if we build
> > in a backup, why even
> > ask ISP A or ISP B to inform ARIN of this change?
> >
> > Jim
> > >
> > > I think some sort of language saying that ARIN will do audits of the
> > > assignments from time to time is needed.  Or perhaps when you
> > > pay your
> > > annual renewal fee, you should have to provide proof along
> > > with it that
> > > you are still connected to more than 1 upstream.  Basically
> > > something that
> > > will prevent someone from being multihomed today, get a micro
> > > assignment,
> > > and then drop their second provider while keeping their micro
> > > assignment.
> > >
> > > Forrest
> > >
> > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 william at elan.net wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'v made a 2nd draft for proposal for ip micro-assignment
> > > with sponsorship.
> > > > It does not format well to be posted in the email as text
> > > but you can
> > > > review it online at:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > http://www.elan.net/~william/arin_proposal_for_micro_assignmen
> > > ts_with_sponsorship.htm
> > > >
> > > > If you have any futher suggestions please feel free to
> > > email me or otherwise
> > > > discuss it on this list. If there are no suggestions for
> > > addition to the
> > > > current text, this will be the proposal I will send to
> > > Richard Jimmerson
> > > > end of this week.
> > > >
> > > > ----
> > > > William Leibzon
> > > > Elan Communications
> > > > william at elan.net
> > > >