FW: Reassignment Proposal

[ginny listman]

Tanya and David,

Sorry for the delayed response.  The Engineering Department here at ARIN
has no objections about exploring the possibility of establishing an IRR
with any of our members, as a substitute for SWIP or RWHOIS.  However,
there are issues regarding required resources for mirroring, and possibly 
compatibility issues with our current version of RR software.  As we
upgrade our hardware over the next 6 months, resources will become
available.  We have not begun to look at the software.

If you are interested in persuing an IRR, please email me directly, and we
will talk specifics.

Ginny

On Fri, 18 May 2001, David R Huberman wrote:

> 
> In support of Tanya's comments, I don't understand what the issue is, to
> be honest.
> 
> More and more providers have established IRRs populated with customer
> routes. The objects in these IRRs are publicly accessible and can easily
> be updated to meet the minimum requirements of demonstrated reassignments
> in the ARIN region.
> 
> This issue requires -0- work by ARIN Engineering (except in the ultimate
> robustness of the future database). In the current WHOIS database, similar
> to RWHOIS referral statements, providers would request IRR referral
> statements.
> 
> It is my understanding (read: guess) that this issue needs consensus by
> the membership and a stamp-of-approval from ARIN management. We can
> try and achieve this in October, right?
> 
> /david
> 
> > 
> > Ginny,
> > 
> > ARIN currently allows the use of SWIP or RWHOIS for reassignment
> > information. Why not offer the third solution along with the first two,
> > instead of getting rid of one of them? ARIN does not have to do the work to
> > our Routing Registry, they just need to decide on policies for the third
> > option. Not everyone is going to be able to use the third option, just as
> > not everyone uses SWIP and RWHOIS.
> > 
> > Tanya
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ginny listman [mailto:ginny at arin.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 3:32 PM
> > To: Tanya Hinman
> > Cc: dbwg at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Reassignment Proposal
> > 
> > 
> > Tanya,
> > 
> > My posted message from April 27, was to survey the membership regarding
> > which reassignment method they would prefer to use.  Since that time, two
> > members have stated an IRR-type method, one member stated IRR or improve
> > RWHOIS, and one member stated SWIP.  Four responses are not enough to draw
> > any conclusion. Therefore, Engineering has continued with making internal
> > improvements in SWIP, including improved processing time, and continues
> > RWHOIS analysis.  There has been no analysis on an IRR method.
> > 
> > Ginny Listman
> > Director of Engineering
> > American Registry of Internet Numbers
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 17 May 2001, Tanya Hinman wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > >Since this is more a question of where ARIN should invest resources in
> > > >developing, and less a policy issue, I would like to move the discussion
> > > >to the dbwg list.
> > >
> > > So is it ok to say we are moving forward with this option since it is not
> > a
> > > policy issue? Can we start developing our own WHOIS database within our
> > > Routing Registry and stop using the SWIP option once it is completed? If
> > > ARIN sets the guidelines for what needs to be included in the WHOIS, then
> > we
> > > can start our development based on those guidelines. Including that same
> > > information that SWIP contains should be sufficient, with the ability to
> > > block personal information from the public if the customer wishes.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tanya Hinman
> > >
> > 
> 
> *--------------------------------*
> | Global Crossing IP Engineering |
> | Manager, Global IP Addressing  |
> |   TEL: (908) 720-6182          |
> |   FAX: (703) 464-0802          |
> *--------------------------------*
>