[33224] in North American Network Operators' Group
fwd ppml: ARIN asking about SWIP procedures
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bennett Todd)
Thu Jan 4 12:29:04 2001
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:27:18 -0500
From: Bennett Todd <bet@rahul.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Cc: ginny@arin.net
Message-ID: <20010104122718.B25564@rahul.net>
Mail-Followup-To: ppml@arin.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="QFYA38BK7dvhx8Kf"
Content-Disposition: inline
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--QFYA38BK7dvhx8Kf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I thought folks in this forum might be interested in possibly
replying to the matter in this note from ppml, and got the author's
permission to forward it to this list. I'm trying to set the
Mail-Followup-To header on this note to the ppml@arin.net list, not
sure if I'm getting it right, but I think it would be appropriate if
any replies were directed to the ppml list, as that's what ARIN is
watching for this solicitation of public comment.
----- Forwarded message from ginny listman <ginny@arin.net> -----
From: ginny listman <ginny@arin.net>
Subject: Just to clarify
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 08:20:07 -0500 (EST)
To: ppml@arin.net
Hi, my name is Ginny Listman. As of early December, I am the new Director
of Engineering here at ARIN. In a meeting yesterday, to discuss database
changes, the following policy issue came up.
Apparently, there have been some upstream ISPs that have assigned some
networks via SWIP, where later the downstream comes back saying it should
have been an allocation, ie they want a maintainer id so they can
assign/allocate further on down.
In most cases, RSG has been granting the downstream's wish, creating the
maintainer id, allowing them to further assign/allocate.
Many times, it is just a minor error in the SWIP template, and shouldn't
be a big deal. However, would there ever be a situation where the
upstream would not want the downstream to be assigning/allocating? Should
ARIN be responsible for notifying the upstream? We have be processing
these request because we do not want to delay the downstream's business.
Do we need a written policy to define how we should be processing such a
request?
----- End forwarded message -----
I believe this matter is on-topic for nanog; if I'm mistaken my
apologies, and please do let me know. Note that this forwarding to
nanog is my fault and not the fault of the original author.
-Bennett
--QFYA38BK7dvhx8Kf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE6VLJ2HZWg9mCTffwRAhFFAKCrbGtDSairhCCHJeEr5MOA6KT7pgCgqF8J
QhY2pOovsczUnqoEZAI/+Ek=
=ctZ4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--QFYA38BK7dvhx8Kf--
