[ppml] Policy Proposal -- Limit Scope of Anonymous Allocations

[Owen DeLong]

While I agree that the provider type 1 case would be nice to solve, I think
it would be hard to do that.  I'm open to suggestions on how we could do
so and I would support a reasonable policy in such case.

However, just because we can't solve the type 1 case does not mean, in my
opinion, that we should NOT solve the type 2 case.

As such, I think this proposal provides a reasonable compromise between
the desire for residential privacy and abuse concerns.  Do you have
concerns that my proposal somehow eliminates necessary residential
privacy?  If so, please identify them.

Thanks,

Owen


--On Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:42 PM -0500 Leo Bicknell 
<bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:

>
> I'd like to compare two situations I see in the residential customer
> market space, and get some comments with respect to your concerns.
>
> Provider type #1:
>
>    - Typically Cable Modem based.
>    - Typically allows users 1-10 addresses, all assigned via DHCP.
>    - Since addresses are assigned by DHCP never SWIP's space.
>    - Since addresses are assigned by DHCP, users can hop addresses
>      to hide their activities.
>    - All requests must go to the ISP.
>
> Provider type #2:
>
>    - Typically DSL based.
>    - Typically assigns a /27-/32.
>    - Typically SWIP's space.
>
> I bring this up because the discussion we've had pretty much only
> applies to provider type #2.  Even if I accept your argument that
> we need to make them SWIP all space with real information, we've
> only solved part of the problem, right?  For any policy that requires
> information for residential SWIP's to be truly effective wouldn't
> we also have to address the provider #1 case?
>
> To fix provider type #1, do we:
>
>    - Not allow them to use DHCP to assign residential customers,
>      mandating static assignments and SWIP's?
>    - Mandate automated mechanisms to query the owner of a DHCP
>      assigned address?
>    - Do something I haven't considered?
>
> If the problem is really that important it would seem to me we need
> to fix both cases.  That doesn't mean they need to be tied together
> (in the same policy), but rather that there should be proposals to
> address both issues.  If it's not important to address the provider
> type #1, then why is it so important to address this for provider
> type #2?  What is different about a user who has 8 IP's assigned
> via DHCP, and 8 IP's assigned via static routing?
>
> --
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org



-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20031119/dba405ad/attachment.sig>