[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

[Tony Hain]

I still don’t see any value in specifying length. What you are looking for is contact info for someone with a clue about how a given network works and using length as a really poor proxy. I could live with a fourth line:

 

Any end network emitting SMTP system SHOULD provide SWIP. 

 

I just don’t know how that gets enforced in any reasonable way. In general SMTP & independent routing are the big targets needing accurate contact info, and length has absolutely nothing to do with either. 

 

Tony

 

 

From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer at umn.edu] 
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:53 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 - updated 2017-07-21

 

Actually, let me revise that; I'm willing to recognize at least the possibility there is a legitimate community interest in having records for assignments that are shorter than /40 for IPv6 and /24 for IPv4.  Why, those numbers?  They are the sizes at the bottom of ARIN's fee schedule, if anything smaller is the same fee, I'm not sure where there is a compelling community policy interest. 

 

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 4:07 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

Honestly, I could live with it just those three lines.  However, I'm willing to recognize at least the possibility there is a legitimate community interest in having records for assignments that are shorter than /48. 

 

As for IPv4, I'd also be just fine with those three lines.  Again, recognizing at least the possibility there is a legitimate community interest in having records for assignments that are shorter than /24

 

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net> wrote:

While I agree with the general direction David is heading, his text is still overly complex to deal with the goal. This whole thread only requires 3 lines:

 

Reallocations MUST provide SWIP.

Requests by the assignee MUST provide SWIP.
Anything appearing independently in the global routing table SHOULD provide SWIP.

 

All the rest is noise that doesn’t add to solving any problem known to mankind, and is simply an artifact of the IPv4-think insane conservation mindset. Size is irrelevant in both protocol versions, and even if you think it is, the only time it comes up is in #3. In any case the length of #3 might change over time, and there is no reason the policy text needs to change to track it. If something is independent, no matter what it’s length is, the intent is to have accurate contact info. 

 

Saying anything more is trying to legislate ISP behavior, which is explicitly outside the scope of ARIN.

 

Tony




 

-- 

===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu> 
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota   
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815 <tel:(612)%20626-0815> 
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <tel:(612)%20812-9952> 
=============================================== 





 

-- 

===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu> 
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota   
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
=============================================== 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170724/a409c4b5/attachment.htm>