[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-126: Compliance Requirement
jbates at brightok.net
Tue Jan 11 16:45:19 EST 2011
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
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
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML