Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

On 11/30/2017 10:44 AM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: Because of the massive (compared to IPv4) blocks given out with IPv6, the need for SWIP except for multihome and downstream ISP's may go away. This is why RFC 1714 was written and why the RWhois project was created. It is understood that

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

On 11/30/2017 10:36 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Nov 29, 2017, at 22:08 , Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: And I will point out that the entire point of validating POCs is to discover things like /16's that haven't been used for 15 years. I’m not convinced this is true. As the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Larry Ash wrote: > On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:30:41 -0600 > David Farmer wrote: > >> Larry, >> >> Out of curiosity, are the reassignments you refer to Simple or Detailed >> Reassignments? I ask be cause this policy should only

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

Larry, If I understand you correctly, then this policy won’t affect you. The point of this policy is that if you do a reassignment that produces a new POC for a known organization, ARIN will make a good-faith effort to contact that organization and make sure the action is valid and in line

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:30:41 -0600 David Farmer wrote: Larry, Out of curiosity, are the reassignments you refer to Simple or Detailed Reassignments? I ask be cause this policy should only affect Detailed Reassignments, as they have their own POCs, and it is those POC will

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

Larry, Out of curiosity, are the reassignments you refer to Simple or Detailed Reassignments? I ask be cause this policy should only affect Detailed Reassignments, as they have their own POCs, and it is those POC will have to be validated because of this policy. Simple Reassignments don't have

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

I oppose this Policy, The result of this would be I would have to pretty much stop SWIP submissions. Many of my reassignments are small enough that SWIP is optional anyway. Of the aprox 110 reassignments I have made, 3 have someone there that could respond to an issue, one of which for some

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

While SWIP assignments are used for determining the amount of addressses in use, there is nothing in the current rules that would require reporting this data down to the individual customer level in most cases. As an example, most ISP's/LIR's provide each customer with a single IPv4 address

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

6 - Fax/ >>> ℠Eclipse Networks, Inc. >>> ^Conquering Complex Networks ^℠ ^ >>> *From:*ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net]*On Behalf >>> Of*Roberts, Orin >>> *Sent:*Monday, November 27, 2017 3:59 PM >>> *To:*Andrew Bagrin <ab

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

> On Nov 30, 2017, at 05:38 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > I support this policy. > > Giving ISP's/LIR's the ability to add reassignment contacts without > verification from the contacts being added I think was always wrong. Often, > the email added was NOT someone who actually processed

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

IMO, it is absolutely how the system should work. Owen > On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:51 , Chris Woodfield wrote: > > One point to make on this proposal is that this may change how ISPs assign > blocks, given that both transfers and allocations have needs-based policies > in

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:46 AM > To: arin-ppml@arin.net > Cc: Andrew Bagrin <abag...@omninet.io> > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC > Validation Upon Reassignment > > Private space is a valid use, as this is one of the only ways to ensur

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

...@uneedus.com] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 11:46 AM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Cc: Andrew Bagrin <abag...@omninet.io> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment Private space is a valid use, as this is one of the only ways to ensure uniqueness.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

:arin-ppml@arin.net>> *Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment I see obstacles but increased fees would lead to greater efficiency in IPv4 assignments and usage or at the very least aid in the migration to IPv6. 1. Charging a monthly fee

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

/770.399.9099 - Office/ >>> /770.392.0076 - Fax/ >>> ℠Eclipse Networks, Inc. >>> ^Conquering Complex Networks ^℠ ^ >>> *From:*ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net]*On Behalf >>> Of*Roberts, Orin *Sent:*Monday, November 27, 2017 3:59 PM >>> *T

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

One point to make on this proposal is that this may change how ISPs assign blocks, given that both transfers and allocations have needs-based policies in force (for both v4 and v6), and SWIPs are generally used as evidence of utilization of existing blocks. With this proposal in force, adding a

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

t;; Andre Dalle <ada...@ncf.ca <mailto:ada...@ncf.ca>> *Cc:*ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> *Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment I’d also like to see a $100 monthly fee per IPv4 /

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

I support this policy. Giving ISP's/LIR's the ability to add reassignment contacts without verification from the contacts being added I think was always wrong. Often, the email added was NOT someone who actually processed abuse issues, but often was instead someone from purchasing or

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

John, I cannot comment for everyone in the community other than to say that any network administrator who sees no value in accurate POCs is certifiably insane. I submit the following for your enjoyment: There once was an admin named Hein Who thought lying on his POC was just fine then along

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

On 30 Nov 2017, at 1:08 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt > wrote: And I will point out that the entire point of validating POCs is to discover things like /16's that haven't been used for 15 years. It would seem to me that ARIN staff vacillates between loving and

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

;abag...@omninet.io <mailto:abag...@omninet.io>> *Cc:*ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> *Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment I see obstacles but increased fees would lead to greater

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

ppml-boun...@arin.net>] On Behalf Of Andrew Bagrin > Sent: November-27-17 3:35 PM > To: Austin Murkland <austin.murkl...@qscend.com > <mailto:austin.murkl...@qscend.com>>; Andre Dalle <ada...@ncf.ca > <mailto:ada...@ncf.ca>> > Cc: ARIN-PPML List <arin

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

I support this proposal in principle. I'm not sure that 10 days is enough time to work out a valid POC in some cases. If it is a new POC they need to be made aware of what it means to be the POC and what is expected of them, and some folks may want to set up a listserv or email group and make sure

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Roberts, Orin Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 3:59 PM To: Andrew Bagrin <abag...@omninet.io> Cc: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml@arin.net> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net>] On Behalf Of Austin Murkland Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 3:26 PM To: Andre Dalle <ada...@ncf.ca<mailto:ada...@ncf.ca>> Cc: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml@arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-1

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

oun...@arin.net] *On Behalf Of *Austin > Murkland > *Sent:* Monday, November 27, 2017 3:26 PM > *To:* Andre Dalle <ada...@ncf.ca> > *Cc:* ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml@arin.net> > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC > Validation Upon Reassignme

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

27, 2017 3:26 PM *To:* Andre Dalle <ada...@ncf.ca> *Cc:* ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml@arin.net> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment Also support this On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Andre Dalle <ada...@ncf.ca> wr

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

ndré Dalle Systems Administrator National Capital FreeNet [http://www.ncf.ca] - Original Message - From: "Joe Provo" <p...@rsuc.gweep.net> To: "ARIN-PPML List" <arin-ppml@arin.net> Sent: Wednesday, 22 November, 2017 11:01:59 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Po

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

ll. > > > André Dalle > Systems Administrator > National Capital FreeNet [http://www.ncf.ca] > > - Original Message - > From: "Joe Provo" <p...@rsuc.gweep.net> > To: "ARIN-PPML List" <arin-ppml@arin.net> > Sent: Wednesday

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

o" <p...@rsuc.gweep.net> To: "ARIN-PPML List" <arin-ppml@arin.net> Sent: Wednesday, 22 November, 2017 11:01:59 Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 06:13:46PM -0500, David Huberman wrot

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 06:13:46PM -0500, David Huberman wrote: > Thank you Scott. As the co-author, I very much recognize this > proposal text is a ???first draft???. Working with my co-author > Jason Schiller, and having solicited feedback from the AC, this > proposal was submitted to solve

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

First off, I’m in favor of the goal of this proposal; I’m sure that a large percentage of unverified POCs are due to SWIPs being made with POCs that are invalid from the get-go. I expect the language will evolve through the PDP, so I’ll hold off on my “as written” judgement for the time being.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

Generally I support this idea but I would expand on 3.7. In the event that an entity already has an ARIN POC they would have the option of accepting the new POC or utilizing an existing POC at the entities discretion for the reallocation or reassignment. I have been in the position of having

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

+1 - I support the general idea here, and would be fine with this text as-is. I suspect others will have feedback on the exact mechanisms prescribed here, so I'm expressing no prior opinion on any changes there. -Scott On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:43 PM, ARIN wrote: > On 16

[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

On 16 November 2017, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced "ARIN-prop-247: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment" to Draft Policy status. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12 is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_12.html You are encouraged to discuss all Draft