[ppml] 2007-1 and comments on 2007-9 and 10

michael.c.loevner at verizon.com michael.c.loevner at verizon.com
Tue Apr 10 14:05:00 EDT 2007


I don't feel like I can directly respond to the current thread on 2007-1 
because I'm going in a different direction with my opposal...and I wanted 
to add in something on 2007-9 and 2007-10

First, my opinion on 2007-1:

While I like the idea of a higher level of security in ARIN transactions, 
I don't necessarily see people making use of this technology.  Applying 
for an X.509 certificate is a process that takes time, and requires 
installation into the mail client or homebuilt software for an ISP.  In a 
lot of cases, the risk of using mail-from outweighs the reward of a 
certification system and the work involved in doing so.  Almost every 
organization that is a member of ARIN uses mail-from at this time, and I 
don't see any of the "big swippers" speaking up now to say they need a 
higher level of security in their ARIN transactions.  I think it's a nice 
idea, but we need to ensure we aren't wasting ARIN's time and money by 
forcing a technology without an existing demand.  I'd love to see some 
organizations that regularly transact with ARIN state that PGP will get 
them using certificates with ARIN.  I'm not willing to say that at this 

As for 2007-9: Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy and 2007-10: End 
Site Immediate Need Policy:

I do not support this particular modification of the policy because it 
limits the amount of address space that can be obtained under this policy 
to a /16.  Since ARIN currently has no maximum allocation size, this 
should be reflected in the Immediate Need Policy as well.  Since these 
cases are exceptional anyways, the possibility that the allocation would 
need to exceed a /16 would be exceptional as well, but since it may exist, 
the limitation must be removed.

I support 2007-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11


Mike Loevner
Verizon Internet Services

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list