<div class="gmail_quote"><div>My take on this is not whether there is whois info or not. whois info is a must have. And accurate whois information is important to ARIN.</div><div><br></div><div>The system we create for collecting that info is in question as is ...what info. is available to whom. Where a reallocation has an isp (for eg) as a contact because the isp agrees to be, my thinking is that ARIN needs to have all the info. on the reallocation and in many cases, the information available to the public is not as detailed as the info. which is available to ARIN.</div>
<div>We also need to decide on the level of accuracy required for ARIN records and that ultimately determines what we put in place. I think I'm getting the view that the current whois database is a little way off the required standard?? And there would seem to be much use of the or maybe abuse of the current system as suggested by the 2006 audit.</div>
<div>RD</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Message: 5<br>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 08:06:33 +0300<br>
From: McTim <<a href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Chris Grundemann <<a href="mailto:cgrundemann@gmail.com">cgrundemann@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:ppml@arin.net">ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-3: Customer Confidentiality<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:f65fb55e1002022106x7ef97a7dk32cce362b3a98af7@mail.gmail.com">f65fb55e1002022106x7ef97a7dk32cce362b3a98af7@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>
<br>
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Chris Grundemann <<a href="mailto:cgrundemann@gmail.com">cgrundemann@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<snip><br>
><br>
> +1<br>
><br>
> whois must contain valid contact information for the person/entity<br>
> directly responsible for the host(s) using a given IP. I oppose this<br>
> and any other policy which undermines this fundamental requirement.<br>
<br>
+1<br>
<br>
--<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
McTim<br>
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A<br>
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:16:41 -0800<br>
From: "George Bonser" <<a href="mailto:gbonser@seven.com">gbonser@seven.com</a>><br>
To: "William Herrin" <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>>, <<a href="mailto:ppml@arin.net">ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-3: Customer Confidentiality<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE081F75AA@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com">5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE081F75AA@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
> Perhaps a *fair* solution is that ISPs who would rather suffer<br>
> penetrating annual audits purchased by ARIN at the ISP's expense can<br>
> forgo publishing customer information via SWIP while those who place<br>
> their information in the public's hands remain relieved of that<br>
> burden.<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Bill Herrin<br>
<br>
For me the judgment call seems fairly simple.<br>
<br>
>From the standpoint of someone who isn't a commercial ISP<br>
<br>
what benefit does this proposal offer me?<br>
What is the value of that benefit?<br>
<br>
What is the benefit to the community at large of the proposal?<br>
What is the value of that benefit?<br>
<br>
What is the cost to the community of the proposal?<br>
<br>
What is the cost to me of the proposal?<br>
<br>
<br>
And then the question of whether to support it or not is weighed. I<br>
keep coming up with little/no benefit, high cost.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 7<br>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 01:54:03 -0600<br>
From: James Hess <<a href="mailto:mysidia@gmail.com">mysidia@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal<br>
95:CustomerConfidentiality - Time Sensitive<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:6eb799ab1002022354q29e029i6d89302cb15022b@mail.gmail.com">6eb799ab1002022354q29e029i6d89302cb15022b@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>
<br>
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On 2/2/2010 7:00 PM, George Bonser wrote:<br>
> If I, as a colo provider, didn't SWIP customers like this their entire /29,<br>
> I may not be able to meet 80% utilization thresholds. ?For purposes of<br>
> calculating utilization, however, the /29 is considered 100% utilized as<br>
<br>
It's possible to keep record of utilization using the form in sec.<br>
4.2.3.7.5 of the NRPM without SWIPing -- where a full /29 block<br>
is not re-assigned.<br>
<br>
SWIPs submitted to ARIN are not (or should not) be your only<br>
records or way of keeping proper information about re-assignments for<br>
justifying additional allocation requests, since most ISPs and<br>
end-users will have some allocations or assignments of blocks smaller<br>
than /29.<br>
e,g it might look like<br>
<br>
City Which IP Addresses Assigned No. of Internal Machines Purpose:<br>
(CITY) *192.0.0.0 1<br>
Collocated<br>
192.0.0.1<br>
(Customer<br>
192.0.0.2<br>
Name) -<br>
192.0.0.3<br>
4 customer IPs<br>
192.0.0.4<br>
4 provider<br>
192.0.0.5<br>
IPs<br>
192.0.0.6<br>
*192.0.0.7<br>
<br>
So, you have 4 IPs that are part of the service provider's<br>
network 192.0.0.0 and 192.0.0.7 broadcast addresses required for<br>
your router, plus your 2 router IPs for their servers to use as<br>
gateway. Then 4 customer IPs, for their server.<br>
<br>
It may be more convenient to just SWIP the entire /29, provider IPs and all..<br>
but then again, this will show the customer as 'responsible' for<br>
some collocation provider router IPs then, which might be<br>
undesirable.<br>
<br>
<br>
In this case... you have 100% utilized the /29.<br>
You assigned 4 IPs to your equipment, and you delegated an address<br>
block equivalent in allocation size of a /30 to the user (probably<br>
192.0.0.3 to 6).<br>
<br>
The end-user's network block is smaller than a /29, so no SWIP<br>
would be required under NRPM 4.2.3.7.2.<br>
<br>
Your router on your premises... and your inefficiency.<br>
Now if you peered with a customer router over a /30, and forwarded a<br>
/29, that would indicate reassignment of a full /29.<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
-J<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
<br>
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 56, Issue 18<br>
*****************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Rudi Daniel<br>e Business Consultant<br><a href="http://www.svgpso.org">http://www.svgpso.org</a><br><a href="http://oecstimes.wordpress.com">http://oecstimes.wordpress.com</a><br>
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” - Bertrand Russell<br>