[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
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.
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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.
> I like the addition.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML