[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality

[Aaron Wendel]

George,

I don't think we're disagreeing per say.  I think we're looking at this from
different angles.

There are a couple reasons I chose not to eliminate SWIPs in the proposal;
One, it would never fly.  Two, I have customers that want to be SWIP'd and
are competent to field inquiries into their IP space and 3, I was looking
for a simple proposal that would protect my customer list while still
allowing others to see if a range was allocated, how much of it was
allocated and to who it was allocated (by name).  I felt that was a middle
ground that everyone could live with.

Plus ARIN still uses SWIP for justification.  They don't care who it's
assigned to, just that it's assigned.

Nothing in my proposal takes away from anything that is already functional.
It simply gives the ISP the ability, along with it's customer, to decide if
the address, phone number and e-mail should be displayed.  Name is still
required.

Aaron


-----Original Message-----
From: George Bonser [mailto:gbonser at seven.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 10:45 PM
To: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality



> -----Original Message-----
> From: aaron at wholesaleinternet.net [mailto:aaron at wholesaleinternet.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 8:48 PM
> To: George Bonser
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality
> 
> Yes.  They require a SWIP or RWHOIS entry.  It might benefit you to
> read the requirements in the policy manual so you can make a more
> informed opinion on the proposal.

I would support a proposal that eliminates SWIP requirements for
single-homed networks of any size provided the owning provider is the
only announcement of that address space.  If the network is to be
announced from another provider or is multi-homed, I would say it must
be public.

Again, ARIN is not in the business of protecting providers from
competition.  But I do see a need to come up with some way to protect
providers from having their lists raided.

If this is a big problem for a company then they are probably charging
more than the competition in that area and wants this in order to
prevent loss of customers due to competition.  And in order to provide
this "protection" to the providers, we lose the ability to find out who
is using address space that might not even be routed through the
provider that SWIPed it.

IP address assignments are a community resource, not a provider
resource, and people holding those resources should be responsible to
the community, not their provider.

We can agree to disagree. How are you going to meet your HD requirements
if you do this?  How are you going to know your customer doesn't already
have more than enough address space and is just getting some "insurance"
from you for runout?


George





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2648 - Release Date: 01/28/10
13:36:00