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

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

Maybe the rule could be SWIP for a /48 or more if the downstream customer 
also has an ASN so that they can receive BGP announcements, otherwise 
SWIP would not be required.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Paul McNary wrote:

> Tony
>
> Do you mean BGP instead of BCP. I agree that IP's that are BGP routable 
> should be the proper place
> to place the SWIP requirement. Anything not BGP routable should be considered 
> local routed.
>
> Paul
> On 7/17/2017 4:25 PM, Tony Hain 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
>> 
>> *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 
>> <mailto: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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
>