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

John Santos john at egh.com
Wed Jul 26 13:51:50 EDT 2017

On 7/26/2017 11:34 AM, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
> Right now, all 500+ busses use a static IPv4 address, that is assigned 
> by the Major wireless provider.  They are NOT in a block reserved for 
> us. They are scattered around several blocks of addresses of the 
> provider, some of which they appear to be leasing from another party, 
> and those SWIP records list the leasing company.  None of them have a 
> SWIP to us, our provider has to forward the reports to us, sometimes 
> thru the leasing co. 

When one ISP leases addresses to a 2nd ISP, shouldn't that 1st ISP SWIP 
those address blocks to the lessee?  In your case, this would reduce the 
complexity of abuse report handling, since everything would (or should) 
go directly to your ISP and directly from them to you.

As far as SWIPing the individual buses to their constantly changing 
locations, that sounds to me utterly pointless.  Would someone be 
expecting the bus driver to handle abuse complaints about a passenger on 
the bus who sent a lot of spam two days ago?

Clearly, the SWIP records should point to the Org contact (i.e. your bus 
company or transit authority) and the Org POC information, (i.e. the 
person or group which handles abuse and technical issues relating to the 
buses.)  This is borne out by actually looking at the information ARIN 
requires,  is exactly the information requested on the ARIN form 
"ARIN-REASSIGN-DETAILED", which is the form your ISP should be using to 
SWIP your bus networks (if they are using the "email a SWIP request", 
which I assume is the same set of information as would be required by 
the RESTful or online assignment methods.)  Furthermore, if the ORG 
already has an ORG-ID on file, the only information required is the Org 
ID, the IP address block, the network's name and the upstream AS.  The 
contact information would necessarily be identical for every bus.

As for the policy, I support the current version, i.e. not changing the 
current IPv4 policy (which as far as I can tell, would require all the 
individual bus subnets to be SWIPed to the bus company, not to the 
individual buses, with the contact info for the bus company's network 
tech staff*), and changing the IPv6 size so as to exclude residences and 
small businesses which typically let their ISP handle technical and 
abuse issues.  The exact value of the IPv6 network size is not important 
to me, but I think if /48 is the current best practice recommendation, 
the limit should be /47 or larger, which /48 SWIPable at the customer's 

[*]Which, I think, can be contracted out to some other organization, 
i.e. the email and physical address can be that of a service provider, 
not necessarily a bus company employee or the physical address of the 
bus yard or the building where the bus company's offices are, as long as 
they are contractually responsible for network management for the bus 

John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list