Policy Proposal 2001-1
mury at goldengate.net
Tue Sep 25 15:07:57 EDT 2001
In my opinion, which not everyone appreciates, if I'm going to SWIP
network assignments I may as well SWIP them all. It isn't all that labor
intensive. Especially if you do it automatically. We have it
If the reasoning is to stop SWIPing home user networks, then that should
be the criteria, not the size of the block. While I think home users
should be SWIPed, it should be noted that a lot of home users are very
sensitive about their information (address, phone number, etc) being
available so easily on the Internet.
GoldenGate Internet Services
* The Twin Cities Largest Locally Owned Internet Provider *
* Multiple DS3s and POPs for Redundancy *
* DSL, T1s, DS3s, ISDN, Web Hosting, Colocation, Web Design, and more *
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, David R Huberman wrote:
> > It is currently required all /29 and shorter reassignments be
> > reported to the ARIN WHOIS database via SWIP or RWHOIS. It is
> > proposed this policy be modified to require reporting for /28
> > and shorter reassignments only.
> Since I actually put forth this idea a few weeks ago on this list,
> I'll re-iterate, in short, my reasoning:
> (1) Most /29s I see assigned are for home networks.
> (1a) Most home networks are (and in my opinion, should be)
> SWIPed with the upstream's contact information in the POC
> (2) Taking out /29s from the SWIPing requirement should,
> in some measurable (hopefully meaningful) way, reduce
> the load on operators and on ARIN.
> It's just a thought - the initial reaction was positive from seemingly
> smaller service providers. UUNET (Lee) chimed in and said it would make no
> difference to them, but then again, UUNET is probably fully automated in
> their SWIPing duties.
> | Global Crossing API |
> | Manager, Global IP Addressing |
> | (703) 627-5800 |
> | huberman at gblx.net |
More information about the ARIN-PPML