[arin-ppml] Revealing /32 customers?

[Jack Bates]

On 4/26/2012 4:19 PM, John Curran wrote:
> Verification of utilization information (as required by NRPM 4.2) is 
> not constrained in the information that ARIN might request (or more 
> often, what an ISP might offer) as evidence of utilization. We are 
> generally flexible, but 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...)

A person could lie about customer data about as easily as they could lie 
about arp tables with a perl script.

If you want a true audit, why not do a meeting session and a quick 
verify within a router/switch/etc?

Why cause a large amount of work on the part of honest requests (who 
probably don't have an IP -> Customer Name format readily available 
since it isn't mentioned in NRPM), especially when the requested 
information is for customers who don't even have to exist to receive an 
allocation?

And is there ever a concern on a renumber when an ISP is registering an 
ASN (which I'm guessing required proof of multihoming) as well as the 
renumber request and has SWIPs for their PA space:

CIDR - SWIP added
/23  2004-09-29
/23 2007-07-02 DSL deployment and moron delaying issuing the SWIP 
(probably me)
/23 2007-07-02
/23 2008-04-17
/23 2009-01-08
Renumber 2012

Granted, they may have asked for a /16 (which I thought was funny, but 
not completely unexpected out of people who don't know and haven't read 
the NRPM), ended up with a /21 (expected correction by ARIN), then after 
renumber had to go back and ask for the final /24 (luckily they 
consolidated 3 routed DHCP relay points for better utilization during 
renumber).

My big concern is that ARIN is being more aggressive than PA allocation 
criteria. There is no indication that at some point ISPs need to collect 
this /32 information from our subtending ISPs. Granted, this makes it 
more attractive for someone to stay with PA space, but creating 
hardships for that reason doesn't seem appropriate (dual standard?).


Jack