[arin-ppml] Clarify /29 assignment identification requirement

[Blecker, Christoph]

My interpretation of this proposal is not removing the ability of ARIN to require details on customers with less than 8 addresses, but more moving it to a last resort.

A couple questions:
- Is this how ARIN staff would interpret this proposal?
- How does this differ from right now? I would suspect that digging into this detail level would be only happen today, if other reasonable methods of verification were exhausted.
- Is this what the author intended, or was it meant to stop this practice all together? Much of the discussion seems to be around completely removing the ability of ARIN to ask into this level of detail, however that's not how I interpret what was written.

Cheers,
Christoph


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: April-26-12 3:39 PM
> To: policy at arin.net
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Clarify /29 assignment identification requirement
> 
> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-2.0
> 
>    1. Policy Proposal Name: Clarify /29 assignment identification
> requirement
>    2. Proposal Originator
>          1. name: William Herrin
>          2. email: bill at herrin.us
>          3. telephone: 703-534-2652
>          4. organization: self
>    3. Proposal Version: 1.0
>    4. Date: 4/26/2012
>    5. Proposal type: new
>    6. Policy term: permanent
>    7. Policy statement:
> 
> Where ARIN must evaluate a LIR's IPv4 address utilization in order to
> perform any duty, ARIN shall not compel the production of customer
> identities for any customer holding a total of less than 8 IPv4
> addresses unless all reasonable alternatives for verifying utilization
> have been exhausted.
> 
>    8. Rationale:
> 
> Per http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2012-April/024523.html ,
> ARIN believes the /29 border for identifying customers called out
> seven distinct times in the NRPM applies only to publication of such
> records. Author contends that the policy intention is and should be
> that the identity of such small consumers of IP addresses remain a
> private matter between the ISP and its customer.
> 
>    9. Timetable for implementation: immediate
> 
> END OF TEMPLATE
> 
> 
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.