[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

The various comments about this Draft got me to read the things that were 
discussed when ARIN-2010-14 changed the SWIP standard from /48 to /64. 
Nowhere could I find a specific reason for that change to 6.5.5.1.  The 
draft only stated the SWIP value was being made /64, without mentioning 
that it was being changed from /48 or the reasons for doing so. The below 
is the only nugget about 6.5.5.1 specifically mentioned on the PPML at the 
time:

********
ARIN (info at arin.net)
Tue Sep 21 10:10:45 EDT 2010
......
Draft Policy 2010-14
Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements
......
3. Resource Impact
This policy would have moderate to major resource impact.  It is
estimated that implementation would occur within 6 months to 9 months
after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be
needed in order to implement:
...
  Potential Database impact if all /64s and larger assignments must now
be swipped (there are ~4 billion /64s in a /32 so the scale of this goes
beyond anything ARIN has seen).
  Changes to current business processes
  Updated templates
  Updated guidelines
  Staff training
*********

As far as I can tell, this was the only mention of 6.5.5.1, when it was 
changed from /48 or more to /64 or more. This was a warning in the staff 
report that SWIP of every IPv6 assignment would have a moderate to major 
resource impact on ARIN.  I think the only reason that this did not blow 
up the ARIN database between then and now is that even though the policy 
manual currently says this should be done by everyone, it is not in fact 
being done much at all by anyone.  My main upstream is typical and has no 
SWIP records at all, even though myself and several others that I helped 
set up each have a static /48 assignment of IPv6.

This staff report only discussed the impact of the change on ARIN, and did 
not consider at all the impact of the amount of ISP labor to populate the 
SWIP database, which is one of the reasons that I think it should be 
changed.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017, William Herrin wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>> Consensus hasn’t yet been reached. I agree that there is significant
>> support for “shorter than /56” actually (not /56 itself). Nonetheless, I
>> don’t believe that shorter than /56 is the ideal place to put the boundary.
>>
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> I think you're an outlier here. I see consensus that /48 should be swiped
> and /56 should not. If there's debate that /52 or /49 should also not be
> swiped or that a some more subtle criteria should determine what's swiped,
> it's not exactly chewing up bandwidth on the mailing list.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> -- 
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>