[ppml] /29 limit for ARIN SWIP whois
drc at virtualized.org
Tue Jan 8 17:24:46 EST 2008
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.
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-
> it is in use by and their physical address is irrelevant.
> 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?
> 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!
>> 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.
>>> -----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%
>>> 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,
>>> /29 subnet is at minimum 50% used (router, host, network,
>>> 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
>>> 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
More information about the ARIN-PPML