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

[John Curran]

On 17 Jul 2017, at 2:25 PM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net<mailto:alh-ietf at tndh.net>> wrote:

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 -

    This is an open forum – i.e. one does not have to be an ARIN
    Member to participate in the discussion.   To that end, if there
    is number resource policy to be developed by the community
    which is applicable to the ARIN registry, then such policy is
    developed on the ARIN Public Policy mailing list and associated
    (also open w/o charge to all) ARIN Public policy meetings.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170717/c1a1ea30/attachment.htm>