[arin-ppml] Customer Confidentially and IPv6

[Owen DeLong]

> 
> 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.
> 
Actually, as I interpret the NRPM, they would be required to put the
covering prefix of the DHCP pool into SWIP as a DHCP Pool, but,
there is no need for the DHCP daemon to update SWIPS.

If that isn't the case, you are correct that that area of policy needs
work.

However, for static persistent assignments of /56s or shorter prefixes
to customers, I think it is perfectly reasonable to require SWIP just
as we require it for /29 and shorter today. I do not see a need to
expand customer anonymity beyond the current residential
requirement.

> 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.
> 
I'm uncertain why they couldn't use /57s even if what you say were
true, but, again, I think that transient dynamic assignments are not
subject to that requirement.

> 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.
> 
I find it interesting that you expressed support for the petition in this
case. As I understand it, the petition, if it succeeds will bring this
IPv4-only proposal to the floor in Dearborn for adoption discussion.


Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100129/f979273e/attachment.htm>