[arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95:Customer Confidentiality - Time Sensitive

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Alexander, Daniel
<Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> This is my last post tonight. I'm on EST time and it's late. I have a
> question on your last post. If it is all about public accountability,
> then why do you think we draw the lines where we do? Why is a commercial
> network behind a /30 less accountable than one with a /29? Why are
> residential hosts less accountable then commercial hosts? I know they
> are loaded questions, but it concerns me when we draw these lines in
> policy. This also touches on Leo's posts about IPv6, in that I question
> if swips are a viable means of accountability.

Hi Dan,

Surely you don't mean to suggest that SWIP is arbitrary and capricious?

So it is. SWIP is to accountability what democracy is to governance:
the worst possible form except for everything else we've considered.

SWIP isn't perfect. It isn't even particularly good. But as long as
we're doing needs-based allocation, SWIP more or less gets the
accountability job done.

Show me an alternative whose structure has a history of success in
other applications. I've no love for SWIP. It was a pain in the rump
back when I was responsible for the operations of an ISP. You might
recall that my proposal 103 would have eliminated it in IPv6. But to
accomplish that I had to change the address allocation criteria to
something invulnerable to fraud.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004