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

Tony Hain alh-ietf at tndh.net
Mon Jul 17 14:28:19 EDT 2017


Jason,

 

I support the concept that there should be SWIP data for any more specific in the routing table, but I don’t see how that can be an ARIN policy. This appears to be the wrong venue for the discussion because the only recourse is for ARIN to revoke space that someone accepts into global routing without SWIP data. Since a 3rd party has “accepted” the announcement, by taking the only recourse of revocation, ARIN would be stating that the routing actions of the involved ISPs are invalid. In effect making a clear statement about -how- routing is done. This is out-of-scope for ARIN.

 

Tony

 

 

From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jason Schiller
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 9:14 AM
To: John Curran
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

 

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?

 

 

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

 

 

 

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:42 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

On 17 Jul 2017, at 9:47 AM, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
> ,,,
> This is the problem.  ARIN is not a carrier.  While disclosure to ARIN to obtain number resources for the connection is OK, Public disclosure by or at the direction of ARIN policy of elements like domain name, name, address and telephone number is not.  Since name, address, telephone number and domain name have already been identified have been defined in the order as elements of CPNI that are protected, world disclosure by ARIN or because of ARIN rules would not be a protected disclosure.
>
> The ISP might also be in trouble for providing the information to ARIN, if they know that ARIN intends to publish this information in a public directory, rather than disclosing it to ARIN solely to maintain number resources.  As suggested by the OP, might have to call them customer 1-n. However that would violate the NRPM as written.  Since the City, State and Zip Code are part of the address, even the "protected" residential records CPNI are being disclosed in violation of the CPNI Order.
>
> There is a big difference between disclosure to ARIN for taking care of numbering policy, and disclosure to the entire world.  Third party disclosure is the main thing that the CPNI rules are intended to address. That is only permitted when it is needed for the provision of service.

Compliance with registry policy is indeed necessary to receive number resources;
it is up to you to determine whether IP number resources are necessary for provision
of your Internet services.

If you choose not to make use of Internet Numbers Registry System resources for
provision of Internet services (or not assign them to your customers), then that is
your choice.   Some ISPs may feel that it is necessary to seek consent of customers
who wish to have public IP number resources assigned in the size that would result in
their publication in the public registry, whereas others may not based on their reading
of applicable regulations regarding handling of CPNI information.  Such choices are
an operational and business matter left to each ISP to decide based on their individual
understanding and circumstances.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO

ARIN


_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.





 

-- 

_______________________________________________________

Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170717/fbbf8a7e/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list