[93391] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP adresss management verification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Nov 13 11:32:48 2006
To: John Curran <jcurran@mail.com>
Cc: Kanagaraj Krishna <kanagaraj@aims.com.my>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:36:44 EST."
<p06240800c17e3fa7dd59@[192.168.3.64]>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:30:50 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1163435450_3121P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:36:44 EST, John Curran said:
> A more interesting question might be: How does the community think an
> RIR should best verify information in the application process today, and
> should that change as we approach the IPv4 event horizon?
I think the current ARIN policies are probably reasonable. I'm not at
all sure there's an economically justifiable reason to be even *more*
due-diligence as the event horizon approaches. Currently, ARIN more or
less trusts the data on the application (and relies on details to catch
hinky stuff - if you claim a need for a /12, and are feeding it off one
DS-3, there's probably something odd going on). As the clouds on the
horizon approach, those who haven't been building IPv6 arks are going
to get desperate. It's hard to say what amount of effort ARIN should
put into detecting a "sufficiently sophisticated" attempt at outright
fraud on the applicant's part.
At some point, it will become cheaper to just deploy IPv6 than to do the
things needed to get more IPv4 space.
What's this week's forcast for the event horizon, anyhow? It keeps moving
around....
--==_Exmh_1163435450_3121P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFFWJ26cC3lWbTT17ARAoNCAJ9sDHy0QLv/F+kniQjx9Ic81OGwdgCgxHRa
2yKxf9cLEUwoghwLuJnfsmQ=
=85ZN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1163435450_3121P--
