[ppml] /29 limit for ARIN SWIP whois
tedm at ipinc.net
Tue Jan 8 19:00:14 EST 2008
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limit of /29 is obsolete since lots of entities today are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
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.
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>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
>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
>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:
>Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net
>if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML