[arin-ppml] Clarify /29 assignment identification requirement

Brett Frankenberger rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com
Sun Apr 29 14:32:25 EDT 2012

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 06:34:33PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
> Bill - 
>  Please do not assume that ARIN will not request information regarding
>  actual customers assigned to dynamic IP pools; we do ask for this level
>  of detail if necessary for verification (i.e. while we are generally
>  satisfied by growth in customer counts, spot checking of those counts
>  also occurs.)
>  The same standard applies in either case: if you do not have an established 
>  record of growth and/or have unusual change in growth rate and/or show signs
>  associated with common fraudulent requests, you will get asked for additional
>  details.
> FYI,
> /John

One thing that has been asserted a number of times in this thread is
that ARIN has increased the level of scrutiny on requests during the
time leading up to, and/or shortly after, IANA runout.  (Presumably the
trigger for any such increased scrutiny being the anticipated decrease
availability of addresses, but my question is independent of the

Can you comment on whether or not this is the case.  That is, in the
time leading up to IANA runout, or shortly after that, did ARIN start
scrutinizing provided documentation in more detail, or did ARIN start
asking for more detail?  (I'm talking about a general case decision to
increase scrutiny in the time frame in question.  I'm sure ARIN refines
and has been refining its procedures over time as it learns what does
and does not work, and I'm sure individual requests get a customized
level of scrutiny as they are evaluated ... that would distinct from
what I'm asking about.)

Assume for the purposes of this question that the change to a three
month allocation period and the officer attestation policy do not
constitute increased scrutiny.

     -- Brett

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list