[arin-ppml] How bad is it really?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 7/19/2010 2:21 PM, Kevin Kargel wrote:
>> But clearly there's a lot of people out there who would consider
>> the parent ISP to be "valid POC contact info" and would fight any
>> attempt to mandate real addresses and e-mail addresses on the SWIP
>> POCs, so good luck with getting any requirements for specifying
>> valid contacts passed.
>>
>>
>> Ted
>>
> We have been through this discussion numerous times.  IMHO the ISP is
> not only sometimes a valid contact but is often the most effective
> contact.
>
> There are many many organizations out who have not got a clue and who
> are operating networks with IP's SWIP'ed to them.  If you contact the
> actual operator they will not know what you are talking about and may
> refer you back to their "Internet Contractor" who will refer you back
> to the originating ISP who will explain things to the "Internet
> Contractor" and refer you back to them again.
>
> There is nothing wrong with listing the customer company name but
> with contact info for the "contracted" cognizant administrator.
>

The network has a technical contact field which is specifically for
putting the clueful person there.  If that's the ISP then that's
fine.  But the SWIP POC needs to be the actual entity that got the
IP address block.  SWIPS are used for justification for more addressing
and unless the company name is very well known "Ford, GM, Coca Cola"
then it's not going to be easy or possible to audit the SWIPS for 
validity for justification for more numbering.  The street address of 
the company needs to be on the SWIP at the very least.  Whether you also 
want to put the ISP's e-mail address under the company POC in addition 
to the technical contact is IMHO a grey area, but that isn't the point 
of the POC verification.  All the POC verification project is currently 
requiring is that whatever e-mail address IS placed in the POC, it needs 
to be valid, because whoever is on the end of that e-mail
address is supposed to certify that the entire POC itself is correct.

As you say we have been through this discussion.  What I just said is
ARIN policy.  If you had ever asked for additional numbering blocks
from ARIN you would have been told that by them.

Ted

> $.02
>