North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Internic address allocation policy

  • From: David Carmean
  • Date: Tue Nov 19 14:05:34 1996

I understand the intent.  But with the amount of sleaze on The Net 
growing (seemingly) exponentially, perhaps it's time to revisit 
some policies WRT privacy issues.

For example, how about signed customer agreements submitted under an 
NDA?  Notarized, if need be.  Or letters of testimony on company
letterhead, with an F.E.I.N.  Perhaps a processing fee would need 
to be implemented to cover these special cases.

I don't know...I just know that having my email/snail mail address 
in a form easily collectible en-masse makes me an easy (and frequent) 
SPAM target.  Or worse.


In a previous message, Kim Hubbard wrote:
> 
> >
> David,
> 
> Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that every ISP decides to do this.
> What's to stop some ISPs from listing a bunch of companies that are
> not their customers and are not really receiving address space from 
> them for the purpose of getting more address space.  
> 
> Let's say I am an ISP and I receive a /19.  All I have to do is go
> through the yellow pages and list a bunch of companies and their
> addresses because no one is going to see this any way except the
> InterNIC and they're certainly not going to start phoning every ISP
> customer to verify they are a customer.  And just in case, I'll go
> ahead and list myself as the POC in case they do decide to call.
> 
> Having the information public is one way to at least *attempt* to keep
> things honest.
> 
> Kim
> 
> 
> > 
> > Clearly some of Matthew's customers are concerned with privacy, and wish to 
> > restrict the knowledge of their connection to the Internet, or some set 
> > of information related to that connection.  So they wish the publicly-
> > available information to be "sanitized".
> > 
> > The NIC already has to base part of it's evaluation of address space use 
> > on methods other than SWIPs and RWHOIS data for address space allocated to 
> > the service provider which has been used internally by that organization.
> > 
> > Could not the provider make the assignments to the customer "care of" the 
> > provider itself, listing a customer ID or similar, to meet the customers' 
> > wishes of privacy; then under an NDA, identification of these customers, 
> > with detailed contact info, could be made to the InterNIC?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > In a previous message, Kim Hubbard wrote:
> > > 
> > > >
> > > Matthew,
> > > 
> > > The InterNIC bases additional allocation blocks on efficient utilization.
> > > We can only see the utilization from your SWIPs and RWHOIS info.  If
> > > you refuse to supply contact information on your assignments, how can we
> > > tell what your utilization is?
> > > 
> > > And as for the routing table overload, although the initial allocation
> > > may be relatively small, it is almost always reserved from a larger block.
> > > 
> > > Bottom line, to receive additional address space all you have to do is
> > > the same thing everyone else does - submit reassignment information.  You
> > > don't have to fly out here, you don't have to be nice to me, just follow
> > > the basic policies.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > 
> > > Kim Hubbard
> > > InterNIC Registry
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > David Carmean           WB6YZM          DC574           <[email protected]>
> >         System/Network Administration, Silicon Beach Communications
> > Unsolicited commercial e-mail not accepted.  Violators will be LARTed.
> > 
> 


-- 
David Carmean           WB6YZM          DC574           <[email protected]>
        System/Network Administration, Silicon Beach Communications
Unsolicited commercial e-mail not accepted.  Violators will be LARTed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -