[arin-ppml] Customer Confidentially and IPv6

[Owen DeLong]

Uh, yeah... OOPS! Yes, the lovely city of Toronto, not Dearborn, MI is correct.

Thanks, Bill.

Owen

On Jan 29, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Bill Sandiford wrote:

> 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/20100129/47fe4c97/attachment.htm>