[152363] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Squeezing IPs out of ARIN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Apr 26 21:08:51 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F996E04.7090909@brightok.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:05:36 -0700
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 26, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 4/26/2012 1:05 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>> If resources are used to provide service to a customer, it is not
>> unreasonable that ARIN require that this to be shown, what customer,
>> etc -- the org. assigning or reallocating the resources is required
>> to have documented this.
>>=20
>> In addition to this documentation, for reallocations of /29 or =
more
>> IPs, SWIP or Rwhois is also required by policy.
>=20
> It is unreasonable to require detailed customer information on /32 =
static assignments which make up the smallest fraction of space compared =
to the huge blocks of dhcp pools (pools which justify allocations on =
their own). In addition, a few show commands on a router displaying arp =
(with first 6 filtered) or ppp sessions (with username filtered) or dhcp =
pool printouts showing utilization would make much more sense and =
provide better "proof" of utilization then handing out private resident =
names of the <10% static /32 utilization pool.
>=20
/32s are not required. Get over it.
/29 and larger.
> For management statics, the same applies. A couple arp table captures =
generally should provide enough proof of utilization.
>=20
> If ARIN really wants to be uptight about it, they can do what all the =
vendors do and set up a meeting session to watch us type the commands. =
This is probably the hardest method to forge.
>=20
> I have not argued about any /29 or greater assignment which should be =
SWIP'd.
>=20
> Someone else in the thread complained that someone would be vague =
information in a SWIP concerning a customer, but I see it's still listed =
under 4.2.3.7.3.2. So the NRPM still apparently recognizes the need for =
Residential privacy as long as upstream contacts are available to handle =
abuse/technical contact.
>=20
The other person spoke of classes of businesses so the residential =
privacy policy would not apply.
Owen
