[ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-3

[BARGER, DAVE (SBIS)]

> "There is nothing in this policy that requires the ISP to provide the
information to ARIN,
nor anything that requires ARIN to audit it."

...and there SHOULDN'T BE.  This policy is not intended to address ARIN
audit policy.  RFC2050
states:

"ISPs are required to utilize address space in an efficient manner.  To this
end, ISPs should have documented justification available for each
assignment.  The regional registry may, at any time, ask for this
information.  If the information is not available, future allocations may be
impacted. In extreme cases, existing loans may be impacted."

ARIN can audit an ISPs utilization at anytime, and based on experience -
they do it!

> "Hiding the data this way prevents ARIN from being able to do it's job..."

2003-3 in no way prevents ARIN from doing there job.  Again, they have
RFC2050 as backup.

> "...and creates an invitation to abuse-friendly providers to do a
land-grab
> of vast amounts of abuse-friendly space scattered far and wide throughout
> the IP space."

Yes, there will always be a minority who disregard the rules.  These
companies/individuals do so with absolute disregard for any/all policy.  If
they want to act in an unethical manner, they will do so.  2003-3 doesn't
invite them to act badly.  They already know how to do it.  But again,
RFC2050 pretty much gives ARIN free reign in auditing utilization, including
revocation of current/provious allocations.

Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:31 PM
To: Taylor, Stacy; Ron da Silva; ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-3


As I read it, this policy virtually requires them to do so.  There is 
nothing
in this policy that requires the ISP to provide the information to ARIN,
nor anything that requires ARIN to audit it.  As such, any ISP that wanted
to push the issue would likely be able to make the case that policy is on
their side.

I don't underestimate staff... They're great.  I just don't want to tie 
their
hands with this ill-conceived policy.

Owen


--On Wednesday, November 19, 2003 12:14 PM -0700 "Taylor, Stacy" 
<Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com> wrote:

> You are forgetting the vigilance of ARIN staff in the below scenario.
> They would *never* take a simple "Residential Customer" record as
> justification for adequate utilization.
> /S
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 11:04 AM
> To: Ron da Silva; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-3
>
>
> OK... I can see this for a /28, but what about a /24, /22, /21, or even
> a /13?  There's NOTHING in the residential customer privacy policy to
> prevent ANY of those size allocations from being anonymous, and, nothing
> that prevents the ISP from "making up" residential customers to chew
> up space to justify more allocations.
>
> Hiding the data this way prevents ARIN from being able to do it's job
> and creates an invitation to abuse-friendly providers to do a land-grab
> of vast amounts of abuse-friendly space scattered far and wide throughout
> the IP space.
>
> Owen
>
>
> --On Wednesday, November 19, 2003 8:15 AM -0500 Ron da Silva
> <ron at aol.net>  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 05:26:55PM -0700, John Brown wrote:
>>> And why would your mother or daughter need more than a single
>>> IP address ??
>>
>> At one point, I had a DSL line with a /28 assignment which I used
>> for a dozen or so devices in my house, some of which were used by
>> my daugthers.  I fail to understand why I should be required to
>> publish any personal data associated with the use of that /28.
>> My upstream ISP should proxy that data for me so that I don't get
>> unsolicited intrusions in my personal life.
>>
>> -ron
>
>
>
> --
> If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.



-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.