[ppml] Proposed Policy: Capturing Originations in Templates

Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Mon Feb 13 05:04:43 EST 2006

> That's what the ARIN RR _is_.  ARIN has been operating a routing 
> for several years.  As Owen just pointed out.
>     > ...they have the potential of solving the stale data problem.
> How so?  What policy would you enact to give ARIN the lattitude to 
> the problem" of the data people publish through routing registries?

Think of Rwhois and the ARIN whois directory. Some companies
file information with ARIN via SWIP and some run their own 
rwhois servers. But the information which is published in these
directories is defined by ARIN policy and the policy mandates
that the information must be published.

Now, back to the original policy proposal. They were suggesting
an extension of the ARIN mandate to include a list of AS numbers
which might announce that prefix. Yes, I know the proposal said
it was optional, but the point is that the writer wanted this
AS number info included in the whois/rwhois framework.

I feel that information about potential route announcements
doesn't need to be in whois because there are route registries
to cover that sort of thing. But I recognize that the route
registries are in some chaos at present and that ARIN does
not operate a route registry other than as an afterthought.

We could mandate ARIN to operate an authoritative route 
registry that does not mirror any other route registry, i.e.
it is the source to mirrors but does not draw from them.
We could mandate address block holders to file information
in the ARIN RR and keep that information up to date. If we
did this then there would be no need to add new fields
to the whois directory.

So I guess I am arguing that the information requested has
more to do with routing topology than with address block 
ownership, therefore we should solve it by making changes
to routing registry policy, not whois policy.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list