The future of SWIP

[Linda]

I agree with David's logic regarding option #2 and why  it is not a good
idea.  I also agree with both Dawn and David that swip should be more
automated.

Linda

Dawn Martin wrote:

> I agree, SWIP should be more automated.
>
> I don't see why there is a need for upstreams to be the only ones
> to be able to change an assignment to an allocation. I would
> think it is a common enough change and if the downstream
> wants to SWIP their reassignments, why make it a longer process?
> In the past the downstream could contact ARIN an have them
> put a maintainer ID on the block.
>
> -Dawn
>
> Quoth David R Huberman (huberman at gblx.net):
> > Hello Ginny,
> >
> > I can't say I see the merits of either approach, to be honest.
> >
> > I am 100% against Option 2, in its current form. Education of
> > downstream customers on using ARIN tools is not a viable option
> > for larger providers with significant customer bases.
> >
> > The advantages of Option 1 seem far outweighed by the disadvantages
> > as you have articulated them. A messier database, with multiple
> > overlapping objects, is not what we're aiming for.
> >
> > Personally, I don't see any major problems with SWIP as it is now
> > conceptually - it simply needs full automation to allow templates
> > to be processed with immediacy.
> >
> > Comments/flames welcome.
> >
> > /david
> >
> > *--------------------------------*
> > | Global Crossing IP Engineering |
> > | Manager, Global IP Addressing  |
> > |   TEL: (908) 720-6182          |
> > |   FAX: (703) 464-0802          |
> > *--------------------------------*
> >