[arin-ppml] Revealing /32 customers?

[William Herrin]

On 4/26/12, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2012, at 1:36 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> 1. Do current ARIN staff procedures have situations which place a
>> mandatory requirement for an ISP to reveal (under NDA or otherwise)
>> customers to whom less than a /29 of address spaces has been assigned?
>> By "mandatory" I mean that ARIN staff will not accept an alternate
>> form of demonstration that the /32 assignments are in use. The
>> customer identities are required.
>
> Bill - A party requesting space must show that the present space is
> in use.  While this generally won't involve us asking for individual
> customers names, I can imagine circumstances where the ISP offered
> documentation doesn't suffice and we ask for more detailed data
> including customer names.

Thanks John,

Of course if I had my druthers, every IPv4 assignment would be a
matter of public record, but I think you'll agree with me that this
particular opinion bears no resemblance to the community's current
consensus.

I certainly think it reasonable to ARIN to suggest demonstrating
utilization via a detailed list of customer assignments, especially if
the allocation request is in any way suspicious. My concern is that if
a list of such /32 customers becomes the *only* way to demonstrate the
validity of  /32 assignments that rather seems to tread on the policy
text cutting off customer identification at /29.

Surely there are other ways to check utilization!


> do on occasion ask for multiple sources of the
> similar data to compare and confirm veracity (this can catch folks who
> want to generate creative "utilization" evidence via perl scripts...)

I don't doubt it and I'm pleased to hear that ARIN is vigorously
defending the address pool. I just want to make sure that if we've
decided, as a matter of consensus based public policy, that
assignments smaller than /29 are permitted to remain a private matter
between ISP and customer that the staff procedures are not, in a
roundabout way, contradicting or partially nullifying that policy.

More to the point, if staff procedures are leaving any ISPs stranded
with no choice but to reveal /32 customer identities, I'd like to see
those procedures revised to better reflect the spirit of the /29
boundary called out multiple times in the NRPM, such as in 4.2.3.7.1.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004