[ppml] /29 limit for ARIN SWIP whois

[Divins, David]

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