[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-180 ISP Private Reassignment

[Seth Mattinen]

On 8/9/12 10:27 AM, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote:
> Seth:
> I can't go further into any details of my customer, hence I did not answer your question.
> 
> I do think your question is valid.  However, as ISP, it is not at our discretion to get into our customers' business.  They gave their justification, based on their sense of security (or whatever it is).  In this case, based on current ARIN policy, we can't grant their request.  That was my response to them in this case.
> 
> However, when I thought about it further, it does seem reasonable for a customer to make such a request.  There are many legitimate reasons not wanting their company names to be publically associated with the IP addresses.  For instance, if they only need to set up their IPSec VPN across the Internet.  Also in some cases they do not have the admin staff and outsource the network management to the upstream ISP.
> 
> A substantial portion of ISP's business customers are managed by the ISP, statically routed, or both.  In term of routing, the prefix is not relevant to anyone else except the ISP.  Outside the ISP, only the ISP aggregate is (should be) visible.  And since the ISP is the only one responsible for routing to that IP address block, it can be argued that it makes sense for ISP to be the POC listed in public.
> 
> I do not believe ISP would indiscriminately register all reassignments as private, as it is contrary to their interest.  They would have to have a bigger NOC to answer all the inquiries on all customers' behalf. What I try to propose here is to give ISP and their customers an option.
> 


I can't really think of a reason why their already public point of
contact isn't good enough for whois. It seems to be good enough for the
US DoD and I'm relatively certain the DoD does secret stuff. PO boxes
are acceptable in whois as well, aren't they?

Because I see valid alternatives to work within current policy I don't
see a reason to support the policy proposal unless there's a reason why
they aren't acceptable, hence my original question.

~Seth