[161200] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: cannot access some popular websites from Linode,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Mar 4 00:51:11 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbWyoOErONRxYPbW=nJ0ggTV+x1xTQgKw2L6gyJNucrvtg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:48:06 -0800
To: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
Cc: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com>,
North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 3, 2013, at 15:48 , Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/2/13, Constantine A. Murenin <mureninc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2 March 2013 15:45, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>>> Now, back to ARIN: is Linode doing it right? Is vr.org doing it
>>>> wrong? Are they both doing it correct, or are they both wrong?
>> They have repeatedly disagreed, on two separate occasions, effectively
>> claiming they themselves are the customers:
>
> ... they are assigning IP addresses to their own equipment, which
> belongs to the provider at all times, and the contact can be the same
> contact for all their resources, therefore: they are not necessarily
> required to display a SWIP in WHOIS. They just need to keep certain
> documentation.
The addresses assigned to their hardware interfaces may fit that
argument.
The addresses assigned to customer virtuals, OTOH, IMHO do not
really meet that test. The virtual and its content are not property of
Linode, they belong to the customer. Yes, the customer is using
Linode's hardware as an execution environment for their virtual, but
the address range is assigned to the customer virtual. At that point,
I would argue that the policy for SWIP does, in fact, apply.
Owen
