[arin-ppml] Customer Confidentially and IPv6

Bill Sandiford bill at telnetcommunications.com
Fri Jan 29 14:08:01 EST 2010


I can't specifically speak for Owen, but at the conclusion of his message I believe he meant to say "Toronto" instead of "Dearborn"

Regards,
Bill

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 2:05 PM
To: Leo Bicknell
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Customer Confidentially and IPv6


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/d7de7f43/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list