[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 109: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements
joe at joesdatacenter.com
Fri Feb 5 23:31:03 EST 2010
I oppose this proposal.
Joe's Datacenter, LLC
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 8:57 PM, James Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Chris Grundemann
> <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 14:30, Aaron Wendel <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net> wrote:
>> You believe that all residential customers should be listed in WHOIS?
> Residential customers do not have to be identified by name or address
> in WHOIS under current policy. So the proposal is neutral in regards
> to that.. By my reading of it, proposal 109 requires more
> information, not less, to be recorded in an assignment.
> We don't need to add re-assignment form standardization to the NRPM,
> because this can be done most effectively by ARIN staff; it makes
> the number policy more complicated, and does not appear to confer a
> benefit. The re-assigning ISP and ARIN should exercise discretion
> in regards to the contents of re-assignment records. The NRPM
> doesn't need to standardize this, any more than it needs to
> standardize what specific documents a new organization needs to fax
> in to _prove_ to ARIN that they really exist, or the fee levels.
> Believe Sec 3.2 is sufficient
> "3.2. Distributed Information Server Use Requirements
> The minimal requirements for an organization to setup a distributed
> information service to advertise reassignment information are:
> The distributed information service must respond to a query with the
> minimal set of attributes per object as defined by ARIN staff."
> Also, in regards to the following: merging and revising the "Cable
> Address Space" policy into a "Residential Market Area" policy, is
> a potential can of worms.
> "Initial allocations are based on total number of homes that could
> purchase the
> service in a given market area. Each assignment to specific end-users
> of /29 and larger blocks still requires individual registration."
> Problem with this wording: _every_ home in a given market area
> COULD purchase certain services, such as dial-up networking or VPN
> services for residential users, even in cases where 15% or fewer
> actually will. Then in those cases, the initial allocation would
> have been based on the higher fictional quantity, the number "that
> could" buy service in that market.
> Cable networks that involve IP addressing for residential customers
> are normally local monopolies, and have well-defined market areas.
> So basing initial allocation on potential market size is not wasteful.
> But for other types of services it could be wasteful.
> Perhaps it's just a wording issue...
> 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.
Joe's Datacenter, LLC
More information about the ARIN-PPML