[ppml] /29 limit for ARIN SWIP whois

[David Conrad]

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
>
>
>