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

[Joe Provo]

<HAT TYPE="personal", STATE="ON">

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 01:08:49PM -0400, David Huberman wrote:
> In addition to these options/questions, I feel like we glossed
> over the question posed by Marty Hannigan: what is the value of
> REQUIRING SWIP anymore?  As a community member (not as an AC member)
> I have trouble supporting any of these as I'm not sure I support
> SWIP being anything other than voluntary.  Whois reassignments are
> not the proper place for the information LE wants, in my opinion,
> and has almost no value to NOCs.  

I find this assertion at odds with both my experience and direct 
inquiries to those in the anti-abuse community.  Upon what basis
is it made?

> And ARIN doesn't need it anymore
> for qualification purposes for a scarce resource.  So what's he
> point of all this?  Genuine question; no tone implied.

As a community, we (used to?) value accountability and transparency.
Having a direct contact associated with a resource has IME always 
worked better than trying to contact a porvider with whom I have no
business relationship. 

[snip]
> > On Jul 17, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I am replying to bring the conversation to one of the suggestions 
> > on the table.
> > 
> > Owen DeLong's suggesting of SWIP all IPv6 business users, and 
> > not Residential users,
> > 
> > Or Kevin Blumberg (and David Farmer) suggestion of SWIP'ing all 
> > prefixes that might show up as a more specific in the global routing 
> > table.
> > 
> > 
> > These are roughly the same result, and have a question of which
> > has a more easily understandable policy.  
> > 
> > The question is who here supports one or both of these 
> > proposals?
> > 
> > Who oppose one (if so which one) or both of these proposals?

Since my concern is associated with the resource usage, and we 
in ARIN-land historically wash our hands of connectivity/reachability,
as much as the second is appealing the former is more relevant and
workable. I personally dislike the blanket exception embedded within 
it, but know there's not going to be any upside to fighting that one
so would rather take what I can get.

> > I would like to suggest one friendly amendment...  
> > - ISPs are required to SWIP IP space that is a reallocation.  
> > - ISPs are required to SWIP IP space that is a reassignment
> >    whenever that down stream customer requests such.  That 
> >    SWIP must be a reassign detail, reassign simple, or a 
> >    residential privacy (if applicable) per the customer request.
> > 
> > ___Jason

I like the addition.

Cheers!

Joe

</HAT>

-- 
Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling