[arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95:CustomerConfidentiality - Time Sensitive
mysidia at gmail.com
Wed Feb 3 02:54:03 EST 2010
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/2/2010 7:00 PM, George Bonser wrote:
> If I, as a colo provider, didn't SWIP customers like this their entire /29,
> I may not be able to meet 80% utilization thresholds. For purposes of
> calculating utilization, however, the /29 is considered 100% utilized as
It's possible to keep record of utilization using the form in sec.
184.108.40.206.5 of the NRPM without SWIPing -- where a full /29 block
is not re-assigned.
SWIPs submitted to ARIN are not (or should not) be your only
records or way of keeping proper information about re-assignments for
justifying additional allocation requests, since most ISPs and
end-users will have some allocations or assignments of blocks smaller
e,g it might look like
City Which IP Addresses Assigned No. of Internal Machines Purpose:
(CITY) *192.0.0.0 1
4 customer IPs
So, you have 4 IPs that are part of the service provider's
network 192.0.0.0 and 192.0.0.7 broadcast addresses required for
your router, plus your 2 router IPs for their servers to use as
gateway. Then 4 customer IPs, for their server.
It may be more convenient to just SWIP the entire /29, provider IPs and all..
but then again, this will show the customer as 'responsible' for
some collocation provider router IPs then, which might be
In this case... you have 100% utilized the /29.
You assigned 4 IPs to your equipment, and you delegated an address
block equivalent in allocation size of a /30 to the user (probably
192.0.0.3 to 6).
The end-user's network block is smaller than a /29, so no SWIP
would be required under NRPM 220.127.116.11.2.
Your router on your premises... and your inefficiency.
Now if you peered with a customer router over a /30, and forwarded a
/29, that would indicate reassignment of a full /29.
More information about the ARIN-PPML