[ppml] /29 limit for ARIN SWIP whois

I'm not trying to be rude to either camp here... but anything of a / 
29 or less isn't really relevant for either.  You're going to want  
the larger provider to enforce their ToS or help/shut-down their  
customer.  Knowing who owns the /32 just isn't going to help with  
either #1 or #2.

On Jan 8, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> OK so I guess let me summarize the points of view:
>
> 1) SWIP is a valuable and much-needed tool that allows
> network administrators on the Internet to quickly find and
> report spammers, and other network miscreants.  The current
> limit of /29 is obsolete since lots of entities today are
> assigned /32s under DSL, and that does not allow for disclosure
> of every entity assigned an IP address.
>
> 2) SWIP is an evil thing that allows my competitors to
> rape me of my customer base and spam the hell out of
> people.
>
>
> I think it's pretty clear that David Divins is in the #2 camp.
> My comment to this is that I think it pointless to set policy
> to make the #2 camp happy.  They won't be happy until the entire
> Internet is just one big anonymous network that allows spammers,
> child predators and other miscreants to wreak havoc with no oversight
> or any way to track them down.
>
> It is pointless to make the claim that a single technical and abuse
> contact is all that is necessary for a netblock assignment of
> tens of thousands of IPv4 numbers, and potentially millions of IPv6
> numbers.  That is the thrust of the "I provide valid POC for my
> netblock, and my customers are none of your business" people. A single
> POC for that many entities merely means a single mailbox that
> is overflowing with complaints that are ignored.
>
> I think we ALL have had the experience of sending a spam complaint
> to abuse at aol.com and seeing how useful it is to getting the spammer
> shut down.  That's the morally bankrupt result of the #2 camp logic.
> So please, let's ignore their input on SWIP policy.  If we
> mandate /32 SWIPS they are
> just going to ignore them, the way they are currently ignoring
> /29 SWIPS.  So, to hell with them.
>
> For the rest of us who have a modicum of responsibility, in the
> #1 camp, clearly SWIPS aren't doing the job.  I will point out that
> they aren't even doing the job for the RIR.  If they were, then
> the RIR would not allow people to submit spreadsheets and such
> as evidence of utilization.
>
> Ted
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On  
>> Behalf Of
>> David Conrad
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:25 PM
>> To: Divins, David
>> Cc: Public Policy Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [ppml] /29 limit for ARIN SWIP whois
>>
>>
>> Oh.
>>
>> That's different.  "Down with SWIP and RWHOIS" is an unfortunate
>> shorthand for "Whois data publication policy should be revised."
>>
>> Opinions vary.  No doubt we'll hear most of them repeated with vigor.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -drc
>>
>> On Jan 8, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Divins, David wrote:
>>> I have no problem sharing that information with my RIR at any tie.
>>>
>>> I do take issue with the full amount of information required being
>>> available to any one who wants it.  My position is if I provide  
>>> valid
>>> technical and abuse contac for an address space, the specific end-
>>> entity
>>> it is in use by and their physical address is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> -dsd
>>>
>>> David Divins
>>> Principal Engineer
>>> ServerVault Corp.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:56 PM
>>> To: Divins, David
>>> Cc: Public Policy Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [ppml] /29 limit for ARIN SWIP whois
>>>
>>> If you don't have SWIP, Rwhois, or its equivalent, how would an  
>>> RIR be
>>> able to determine utilization?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -drc
>>>
>>> On Jan 8, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Divins, David wrote:
>>>> I think it is clear from these discussions that SWIP is  
>>>> unnecessary.
>>>>
>>>> Down with SWIP and RWHOIS!
>>>>
>>>> -dsd
>>>>
>>>> David Divins
>>>> Principal Engineer
>>>> ServerVault Corp.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>>>> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ray Plzak
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:31 AM
>>>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
>>>> Subject: ***POSSIBLE SPAM*** Re: [arin-discuss] /29 limit for ARIN
>>>> SWIP whois
>>>>
>>>> This discussion needs to move to the ppml as it concerns a  
>>>> policy and
>>>> its merits and rationale.
>>>>
>>>> Ray
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-
>>>>> bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:14 PM
>>>>> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] /29 limit for ARIN SWIP whois
>>>>>
>>>>> In a message written on Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 10:23:23AM -0500, Joe
>>>>> Maimon wrote:
>>>>>> Is there any overriding reason to limit ARIN swip to /29 or  
>>>>>> bigger?
>>>>>
>>>>> I will point out (in IPv4):
>>>>>
>>>>> /32 assignment (e.g. dial up, DSL, etc) is by definition 100%
>>>>> utilized.
>>>>>
>>>>> In terms of subnets, which only make sense if you have two more  
>>>>> more
>>>>> devices (router + one or more hosts):
>>>>>
>>>>> /31 subnet by definition is 100% used.
>>>>> /30 subnet by definition is 100% used (router, host, network,
>>>>> broadcast).
>>>>> /29 subnet is at minimum 50% used (router, host, network,
>>>>> broadcast).
>>>>>   If we further assume this was done because a /30 was not large
>>>>>   enough (e.g. people are doing the right thing) there must be at
>>>>>   least 5/8's, or 62.5% in use.  Also, while the standard may  
>>>>> be 80%
>>>>>   utilization, which would require 7 of the 8 IP's to be in use;
>>>>>   that leaves an interesting corner case where 5/8 and 6/8 can't
>>>>>   fit in a /30, but don't meet 80%.  Thus it makes sense to count
>>>>>   5/8 and 6/8 as fully utilized, making it all but impossible to
>>>>>   have an underutilized /29.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, one of ARIN's primary uses for the data is to insure
>>>>> assignments
>>>
>>>>> were made in accordance with ARIN's rules when someone requests  
>>>>> more
>>>>> space.  There's no reason to review a /30, /31, or 32, as  
>>>>> there's no
>>>>> chance those assignments were under-utilized.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>      Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>>>>>       PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List -
>>>>> tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
>> ARIN Public Policy
>> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net
>> if you experience any issues.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the  
> ARIN Public Policy
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net  
> if you experience any issues.

-- 
Jo Rhett
senior geek

Silicon Valley Colocation
Support Phone: 408-400-0550