[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality
owen at delong.com
Sun Jan 31 02:32:06 EST 2010
Um, in such a case, wouldn't it be appropriate for that to be an end-user
assignment and no SWIP is required because the network is under the
control of the end-user organization? Current policy seems to cover that
On Jan 29, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
> Ok. How would you change the wording to reflect that?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Bonser [mailto:gbonser at seven.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 7:16 PM
> To: Aaron Wendel
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Aaron Wendel [mailto:aaron at wholesaleinternet.net]
>> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 4:37 PM
>> To: George Bonser
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality
>> What is the proposal distinguished between "Hosted" customers and
>> "Downstream" customers? Meaning that if they have infrastructure in a
>> datacenter you control verses receive transit service from you in
>> facility. What would you think of that?
> The only way such a proposal to have only the provider's contact info
> makes any sense is if the provider is basically the "operator" of the
> network and there is no other path to the internet except through that
> provider. Once there are multiple ways out and/or the customer manages
> the network themselves, they need to be listed.
> 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: 01/29/10
> 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