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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 25, 2017, at 10:34 , Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com> wrote:
> 
> On 17-07-24 05:06 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
>> 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
> 
> While I agree in principle, it CAN be provided by "SWIP" OR 'rwhois', and that should be pointed out, as rwhois is more flexible in the IPv4 space, eg providing allocation information to the /32 level.
> 
> This again goes to an earlier email where I described that it should be more conceptual, than specific ranges..
> 
> It should be, "if a party is responsible for the originating traffic", then that party should be displayed via SWIP/rwhois.

Well… That’s hard to implement in practice. How do we go about SWIPing all those home windows boxes to the hackers that are actually controlling the emitted traffic?

Owen