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

[Tony Hain]

John,

 

I think we are in violent agreement here, other than the ARIN membership is the wrong venue (not broad enough to encompass the appropriate community) for the base statement that SWIP data  must exist for a routing entry. If the appropriately broad community established that BCP; a policy enforceable by ARIN staff would be “complies with community established BCP’s related to routing”.  

 

The only problem I have with the general braindead conservation mindset that says a /48 is non-consumer, and must be SWIPed while longer values would be only consumer and therefore exempt. As far as it goes, if a consumer convinced the ISP they had a technical need for a /36, that should be exempt based on consumer protection. Length has nothing to do with it. Identifiable routing slot contact info is the “need” here, so anything that is not broken out doesn’t “need” SWIP data. That said, this whole paragraph, and most of the current discussion belongs in another venue.

 

Tony

 

 

From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] 
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 12:25 PM
To: Tony Hain
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

 

On 17 Jul 2017, at 11:20 AM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net> wrote:

 

John,

 

So you are OK with a policy that says ARIN is required to revoke address space if other ISP’s choose to accept it into the routing table, but there is no SWIP for it? To me that says you are making a statement about “how things are routed” by requiring a database entry before it gets accepted into routing.

 

I have no problem with a BCP to the effect that the data SHOULD exist, but as a policy this has ARIN stomping right on the line it claims to avoid.

 

Tony - 

 

ARIN number resource policy must be germane to administration of the registry;

i.e. if you want a policy that says an address block will only be issued for a certain

reason (and that reason includes some routing characteristic, such as multihoming)

then ARIN will have parties represent that they intend to use in accordance with

that requirement, and will investigate representations that appear to be fraudulent.

 

For example, a policy that states that "IPv6 blocks will have SWIP performed for any

sub-delegations which are going to be individually announced by the ISP" would be 

a policy which is enforceable, since the ISP is representing that they’ll do “X" under 

certain circumstances, and it’s trivial to revoke if they fail to follow through and we 

receive a fraud report from the community calling attention to that fraud. 

 

Just remember, any characteristic or behavior that you intend to promulgate in this

manner effectively effective defines or extends the scope of ARIN’s mission, so it’s 

worth being very cautious and very certain before proposing such…   The fact that 

parties need IP address space mean that they have little effective remedy to the 

implications of community-developed number policy, and so requirements that aren’t 

directly and clearly related to ARIN’s mission (e.g. “requester agrees that they will 

put a statute of ARIN’s CEO in their lobby within 12 months of issuance”) are likely

to be found out of scope by ARIN’s Board of Trustees...

 

Thanks!

/John

 

John Curran

President and CEO

American Registry of Internet Numbers

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170717/cb0d1e14/attachment.htm>