[arin-ppml] Customer Confidentially and IPv6

[Leo Bicknell]

Customer Confidentially seems to have degenerated into the same old
same old in the various threads on it.  As such I don't have much
hope for us to come to a conclusion, since we haven't been able to
before.

However, I would like to point out there is something different
going on now that was not happening in 2004 when the last discussion
started; IPv6.

We have this notion in IPv4 that /0-/28 need to be in the database,
and /29-/32 are optional in the database.  We also have a distinction
that dynamic addresses need not be SWIP'ed, but static ones do.
This is why those who assign a single dynamic IP (e.g. a cable
modem) don't put their entire customer list in WHOIS, but those who
assign a /28 (e.g. some DSL providers) do.

There are several arguments about why this is, but they all come
down to some form of "if you have more than x addresses you're using
enough of the public commons that you should be listed".

Well, what happens in IPv6?  In the NRPM today, 6.5.4.4 states "All
/56 and larger assignments to end sites are required to be registered".
So for instance if the cable modem provider today who provides a
single dynamic IP via DHCP and puts none of them in SWIP decides
to provide every customer with a /48 (as many want them to do) or
even a /56, via DHCP-PD they will be required to put those dynamic
assignments into SWIP.

So we are at a cross roads where we are poised either to add literally
tens of millions of records to SWIP and cause a new dump of customer
databases to ARIN; or perhaps we will inadvertently force many ISP's
to hand out /60's and /64's to customers so they don't have to deal
with putting these customers into WHOIS.  I think either would be
a disservice to the community.

Given IPv4's end game is near I don't really care how SWIP gets
applied to IPv4 anymore.  It is what it is, and there is no reason
to revisit the issue.  However, IPv6 fundamentally alters some of
the arguments used with respect to who is in the database and how
they are listed.  I think the AC would be wise to take this proposal
and use it to foster a discussion of WHOIS in an IPv6 world.  Privacy
of residential customers has clearly been an ongoing concern in
various policies, and if IPv6 lists whole classes of users that are
not listed today then the level of concern will likely skyrocket.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100129/25fbf253/attachment.sig>