From tanya.hinman at cwusa.com Thu May 17 12:40:40 2001 From: tanya.hinman at cwusa.com (Tanya Hinman) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 12:40:40 -0400 Subject: Reassignment Proposal Message-ID: >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 From ginny at arin.net Thu May 17 15:31:52 2001 From: ginny at arin.net (ginny listman) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:31:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Reassignment Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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 > From dploher at level3.net Fri May 18 12:47:40 2001 From: dploher at level3.net (Darren Loher) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:47:40 -0600 Subject: Reassignment Proposal In-Reply-To: ; from ginny@arin.net on Thu, May 17, 2001 at 03:31:52PM -0400 References: Message-ID: <20010518104740.A3439@mail1.level3.net> Hi, Since Level 3 uses RWHOIS for IP justification with ARIN, we already have the majority of information that would be required for reassignment in RWHOIS. With some modifications, we could include all the necessary template information. This seems cleaner than SWIP over all. RWHOIS would be a nice method for IP reassignment/delegation if RWHOIS remains the prefered method for reporting IP allocations. An IRR solution might be better in the long run. And of course, we run our own route registry as well, that also contains most of the info required for delegations. Seems reasonable to use one of these so we're not doing so much redundant work. Not sure how many ISP's have real functioning route registrys as opposed to functioning RWHOIS servers. -Darren -- Darren Loher Level 3 Communications dploher at level3.net Global Data Architecture 720-888-2847 (office) "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 03:31:52PM -0400, ginny listman wrote: > 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 From tanya.hinman at cwusa.com Fri May 18 14:27:43 2001 From: tanya.hinman at cwusa.com (Tanya Hinman) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:27:43 -0400 Subject: FW: Reassignment Proposal Message-ID: 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 > From huberman at gblx.net Fri May 18 15:19:06 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:19:06 -0700 (MST) Subject: FW: Reassignment Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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 | *--------------------------------*