[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-126: Compliance Requirement
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Tue Jan 11 13:52:57 EST 2011
FWIW, here's another version of the rationale that the original author had
on an earlier version...
"Due the large size of IPv6 address blocks there will be no real or
effective enforcement mechanism to ensure those who are allocated IPv6
address will maintain the proper WHOIS records in accordance with ARIN NRPM
6.5. While it is recognized this is not an absolute solution to ensure
compliance, it is the best method under current ARIN policies."
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:00 AM, George Bonser <gbonser at seven.com> wrote:
> 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
> *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...
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:10 AM, George Bonser <gbonser at seven.com> wrote:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML