[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-126: Compliance Requirement

[George Bonser]

Fair enough, but maybe it should be more explicit that it is aimed at
keeping whois up to date.    I agree that valid contact information is
important.  The major problem with v6 is going to be hijacking of
address space simply because there is so much of it available.
Nefarious operators are probably just going to grab a chunk of space and
use it and the v6 "full bogons" list is so large that it probably can't
be used on most dual stack routers (along with the full v4 and v6
non-bogons tables).

 

But as someone pointed out earlier, how big a problem is this?  What
percentage of the issued resources is currently assigned to "dead"
contacts?

 

"most of what you're objecting to is already policy" except the "we
break your network" part about turning off reverse dns which on
reflection, is probably ok.  But you are right, it wasn't exactly clear
to me on a quick read how much of the proposed text is new.  Thanks for
sending that bolded version.  In fact, I am in favor of producing that
format in proposed changes with any deleted existing wording shown stuck
through and new wording in bold.  It sure makes it easier to see what
exactly is being changed.

 

 

From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:44 AM
To: George Bonser
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-126: Compliance Requirement

 

I don't think this policy proposal is about IPv4.  There is already an
effective enforcement mechanism there: you can't get more space unless
you're following procedures.  But for IPv6, there is no real enforcement
mechanism to ensure that those who are allocated IPv6 addresses will
keep whois up to date.  The original intent of the author was to give
ARIN a tool to encourage people to keep their IPv6 whois records up to
date, even if they never go back for additional space.

And as I mentioned in another message, most of what you're objecting to
is already policy.  If you want to change that, we'd need a new policy
proposal to do so...

-Scott

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:10 AM, George Bonser <gbonser at seven.com>
wrote:






 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110111/7fda85cb/attachment.htm>