[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-157 Section 8.3 Simplification

[Benson Schliesser]

On Sep 22, 2011, at 6:53 PM, Tom Vest wrote:

> I am not suggesting that Geolocation and/or Geoproximity are relevant now or might cease to be relevant for transferred ASNs, but rather that the increased mobility of ASNs could reduce the effectiveness Geolocation and/or Geoproximity for everything else.

Geolocation approaches are fundamentally broken if they assume networks are static.  The relationship of an address-location might change over long-ish timescales, but it does indeed change.  And an ASN doesn't necessarily align with a geography.  I don't see how ASN transfers materially change this situation.

> For now I'll assume that the relevance of ASNs to the other four of the six issues identified in the ISOC paper ("Identifying abusers," "Spam," "Authentication and security," and "Lawful intercept/forensics") is somewhat clearer; please let me know if you disagree.

I'm struck that all of these issues are effectively dealt with by using Whois.  This is true for IP prefixes as well as ASNs.  So I'm not sure I understand how you're applying these beyond their original context of address sharing.  It's certainly not clear to me why they're reasons to prohibit updating Whois records to reflect ASN transfers.  Can you explain further?

Cheers,
-Benson