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

[Jack Bates]

On 1/11/2011 2:12 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> As a point of clarification (and as Scott already pointed out), the
> original author's intent was specific to IPv6. Although this policy
> also affects IPv4, that is not it's intended or stated primary
> purpose.
>

The current language, as applied to v6 isn't very workable or 
enforceable; nor do I think we really want full blown audits from ARIN. 
I'd personally support striking the sections, versus amending them. 
Security through obscurity may not be very effective, but privacy 
through obscurity sure is. Determining if a range is static, dynamic, 
home user, business; I prefer to leave people guessing. They have my 
ARIN POC details for the initial allocation if they have questions. 
Enforcing additional swips which don't provide additional contact 
information doesn't serve the community except to provide information 
that isn't really their business (is it really my responsibility to tell 
you if you should block a /56 or /48 on your web forum?)

I understood the need to a degree on IPv4 for justification. IPv6 
justification is handled completely different and should be less 
dependent on SWIPs which provide next to no utilization information but 
do provide information which can be useful to people who don't need to 
know it. whois information is usually kept up-to-date due to cross 
domain POCs. Absent the POC or the need for rDNS pointers (which fewer 
will be needed in IPv6 due to nibbles), I don't see a need for 
additional records if an SP doesn't want to include them.

> As such, it may be worthwhile to look at this proposal from the
> perspective that we *are* talking about this near the dawn of the IPv6
> Internet.
>

I dislike the current policy and think it should be abolished.

These changes only serve to break rDNS (which being easy to do is more 
likely to be done) for valid downstream networks.


Jack