[arin-ppml] SWIPs & IPv6
John Curran wrote:
> Ted -
> So do you believe that ISP's will maintain their IPv6 delegations
> with the same level of accuracy as IPv4 today,
It depends. ISP's that see value in
SWIP/Rwhois data would likely be including that in RFP's for stuff
like new IP management software, etc. those would probably be
continuing to be as accurate as they always have been.
I think most large ISP's (ie: national or global in size) are
already in this boat and I don't think they will change much.
I'm not sure how many small/medium ISPs out there are using commercial
IP management software, and of the ones who are, how many of those would
be willing to pressure their vendor for a new version that supports IPv6
and SWIP filing.
For the ones who aren't using the commercial software, the most
common/popular free IP Address management software out there in use is
IPPlan, and this does NOT support IPv6 and almost certainly NEVER will.
IPPlan can be set to generate SWIPS.
The only free replacement out there that supports IPv6 is HaCI and it
does not auto-generate SWIPS.
I think also a lot of ISP's are still using a spreadsheet and
manually filing SWIPS, those are the ones most likely not to remain
And of course, the ISP's deliberately thwarting the Whois database
already (to protect spammers and other criminals) are going to continue
to do as they have always done.
> and if not, do you
> think the loss of this data will impact operations?
I think it's far more important that whatever POC is listed in
the WHOIS database as responsible for a particular IP range,
be responsive to e-mail complaints from other admins of other
It's actually worse from an operations P.O.V. if a sub-delegate
POC isn't responsive, than if the sub-delegate entry doesn't even
exist, and the parent IS responsive.
I realise ARIN has a lot of concerns of utilization but I think most
ISPs are more concerned with getting a response from a responsible
party in the Whois database, rather than how well-utilized a particular
parent block is.
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> Danny McPherson wrote:
>>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>> My original post on this topic was aimed at the 'anti-whois'
>>>> crowd because I felt that the post from Danny on the 30th was a
>>>> recycling of the old "well if nobody is filing SWIPS then I'm
>>>> not going to so let's get rid of them" argument. I have seen
>>>> that logic before and I thought I recognized it again, and I
>>>> have to say that I believe my guess was right considering
>>>> Danny's highly negative reaction to my pointing out the
>>>> foolishness of not making SWIP data available.
>>> For the record, you're mistaken, I had zero opinion on this topic
>>> beyond trying to understand what the issues were.
>> Danny, I apologize for assuming that you had an iron in the fire on
>> this. The last time this topic came up on the list the original
>> poster definitely had an axe to grind.