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

Michael Peddemors michael at linuxmagic.com
Wed Jul 19 18:03:02 EDT 2017

On 17-07-17 10:54 AM, David R Huberman wrote:
> AT&T Internet Services SBCIS-SIS80-1005 (NET-69-0-0-0-1) - 
> THE MEDICINE SHOPPE SBC069000000000030204 (NET-69-0-0-0-2) - 
> When you lookup the specific /29, you get:
> Address:        310 ORANGE ST
> City:           NEW HAVEN
> StateProv:      CT
> PostalCode:     06510
> Country:        US

It depends, who do you want to be authorative for contact information on 
issues related to that network.

If ATT wants to deal with every issue related to every IP address in 
that /17, no need to do SWIP, however if you want the Medicine Shoppe to 
be be able to authoratively speak for the usage of that /29, you better 
give them SWIP/rwhois.

It also is a 'boundary' condition, eg can speak to the operations of the 
/29, but should not have to worry about activity from surrounding blocks..

Now, in terms of an ISP providing IP allocations to customers, it may 
not have to be SWIP'ed on the IP boundary, as for instance a /21 may ALL 
be dynamic IP Addresses for customers, which can be SWIP'ed as such, and 
the holder of the SWIP (poc) will be responsible for the combined 
behavior of the pool.

However, if a statically assigned IP to a business customer, it might 
want to be SWIP'ed so that the specific customer can set a 'boundary' on 
behavior, eg my IP is not like the rest around me, and I will be 
responsible for my IP's activity.

Aside from the concept's of SWIP helping 'justify' usage for resources, 
(and there is a slippery slope, if you don't care about justification 
for IPv6 but you do for IPv4 in terms of legal contests), the idea of 
setting a control boundary via SWIP and/or rwhois is a very important 

As such, I would suggest making this concept a basis for when SWIP 
'might' be used, but not enforced.. eg. SWIP should not be needed at any 
lower level than the boundary of responsibility.

An ISP could set that boundary for one household, or one business, IF 
that is the boundary of responsibility, and the household or business 
'chooses' to be the responsible party for that boundary, and in that 
case they should expect that their POC information be publicized.

It would be better if the concept of 'boundaries' be enshrined, instead 
of the actual number of IP (v6 or otherwise) or segments.. In some cases 
in the future it 'could' be a boundary be specified as low as a /56, but 
in reality, the segment would be different depending on the use case.

If you want to enshrine 'use cases' into the proposal, then you might 
come to agreement for a specific use case, when/how to SWIP it.

Also, remember, 'rwhois' is available at a lower granularity than SWIP 
might require as well..

"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list