[arin-ppml] Clarify /29 assignment identification requirement
bill at herrin.us
Sat Apr 28 07:21:33 EDT 2012
On 4/28/12, Jon Lewis <jlewis at lewis.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, William Herrin wrote:
>> Have you considered the double-standard in place here?
> I don't see it as a double-standard. If, by whatever process, you've
> manually assigned an IP to a customer, you will have a record of
> this, mapping that IP to the customer (with very few exceptions, most, if
> not all, of which I would call idiocy). If the IP assignment is via some
> automated process (DHCP, IPCP, etc.) then you likely have a pool of IPs
> for automated assignment, and regardless of how long those automated
> assignments last, I wouldn't expect you to have records (other than logs)
> mapping the assignment to a customer. In this case, you report the IP
> pool as X IPs for Y number of Z-type customers.
Your always-on customers are always consuming an IP address. You know
which ones are connected to which DHCP pools and you keep a record of
which one attaches to which address so that you can deal with network
abuse reports. Right?
Why should you have the privilege of keeping those customer identities
secret from ARIN when someone using a the more direct method of
assigning a specific /32 to a customer does not?
After all, when we talk "dynamic pools" we're usually not talking
about dialups any more where a given customer will tie up an address
for only a few hours a month.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the ARIN-PPML