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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 26, 2017, at 07:20 , Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com> wrote:
> 
> On 17-07-25 02:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> 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
> 
> I assume you were being flippant/joking.  The person who should be contacted if the device is hacked in that case, would 'normally' be the ISP, unless the person notified the ISP that they were taking responsibility.  (Same way as they now request a static IP address instead of dynamic)

Yes, Of course I was joking, but my point is that it really isn’t “the party responsible for originating the traffic” rather than “the closest knowledgeable party to the party responsible for the operation of the machine originating the traffic.

> But, in keeping with your 'flippant' style, we do have some ISP's that aren't responsible for the traffic that happens on their networks too ;)

Well… We have ISPs that fail to act responsibly about traffic that happens on their network. Saying they are not actually responsible is another question which I don’t necessarily agree with.

Owen