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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Jul 20 15:55:51 EDT 2017

+1… Well said, Joe.


> On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:34 , Joe Provo <ppml at rsuc.gweep.net> wrote:
> <HAT TYPE="personal", STATE="ON">
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 01:08:49PM -0400, David Huberman wrote:
>> In addition to these options/questions, I feel like we glossed
>> over the question posed by Marty Hannigan: what is the value of
>> REQUIRING SWIP anymore?  As a community member (not as an AC member)
>> I have trouble supporting any of these as I'm not sure I support
>> SWIP being anything other than voluntary.  Whois reassignments are
>> not the proper place for the information LE wants, in my opinion,
>> and has almost no value to NOCs.  
> I find this assertion at odds with both my experience and direct 
> inquiries to those in the anti-abuse community.  Upon what basis
> is it made?
>> And ARIN doesn't need it anymore
>> for qualification purposes for a scarce resource.  So what's he
>> point of all this?  Genuine question; no tone implied.
> As a community, we (used to?) value accountability and transparency.
> Having a direct contact associated with a resource has IME always 
> worked better than trying to contact a porvider with whom I have no
> business relationship. 
> [snip]
>>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com> wrote:
>>> I am replying to bring the conversation to one of the suggestions 
>>> on the table.
>>> Owen DeLong's suggesting of SWIP all IPv6 business users, and 
>>> not Residential users,
>>> Or Kevin Blumberg (and David Farmer) suggestion of SWIP'ing all 
>>> prefixes that might show up as a more specific in the global routing 
>>> table.
>>> These are roughly the same result, and have a question of which
>>> has a more easily understandable policy.  
>>> The question is who here supports one or both of these 
>>> proposals?
>>> Who oppose one (if so which one) or both of these proposals?
> Since my concern is associated with the resource usage, and we 
> in ARIN-land historically wash our hands of connectivity/reachability,
> as much as the second is appealing the former is more relevant and
> workable. I personally dislike the blanket exception embedded within 
> it, but know there's not going to be any upside to fighting that one
> so would rather take what I can get.
>>> I would like to suggest one friendly amendment...  
>>> - ISPs are required to SWIP IP space that is a reallocation.  
>>> - ISPs are required to SWIP IP space that is a reassignment
>>>   whenever that down stream customer requests such.  That 
>>>   SWIP must be a reassign detail, reassign simple, or a 
>>>   residential privacy (if applicable) per the customer request.
>>> ___Jason
> I like the addition.
> Cheers!
> Joe
> </HAT>
> -- 
> Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
> Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list