[arin-ppml] Why should we do Proposal 121
jbates at brightok.net
Thu Dec 9 16:47:02 EST 2010
Oops. Wrong button. Was supposed to be private, which is why it rehashes
a lot of my other emails onlist.
On 12/9/2010 3:45 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> I still believe ISP->ISP is appropriate, but I do believe that the
> policy should perhaps add the justification for being an ISP (ie, method
> of ARIN validating that an ISP is receiving the appropriate space). The
> common methods as I mentioned on ppml are to show corporate documents
> (as is done with ARIN when first getting an ORG-ID; and is designed to
> try and keep an entity from cloning itself and having space assigned to
> multiple org-ids from different entities) and/or contract copies as we
> do in proving multihoming for ASN.
> I'm not sure how much of this is policy worthy and how much is
> implementation specific.
> Also, I'm not sure that nibble assignments are necessary or appropriate
> for ISP -> ISP transactions? Contiguous space is important within the
> scope of a single ISP, but subtending ISPs (especially when multihomed)
> don't require this (if they went to ARIN, they wouldn't be contiguous
> with their upstream, so assigning a /32 do a downstream's downstream ISP
> wouldn't need to be contiguous). I'm also not sure on nibble allocation
> sizes in this type of scenario; though not completely against it.
> On 12/9/2010 10:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Either the policy is good stewardship of the address space or it is
>> not. If
>> it is not good policy, then, we should change the ARIN policy. If it
>> is good
>> policy, then the ISP should be able to make the reallocation if that is
>> where the other ISP prefers to get their space.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML