[arin-ppml] Discussion on elimination of SWIP requirements.

Sat Jun 3 16:14:28 EDT 2017

Sorry, I guess for a list like this, simply saying 'Horrible Idea' is 
not to helpful to the readers, but I for one assumed everyone would 'get 
it' that 'rwhois' and 'SWIP' and crucial to many involved in the 
Internet, especially when it comes to security.

And of course, ARIN has had a problem for years with poor or invalid POC 
entries in records, but they would be in a lot worse shape if it wasn't 
part of the ARIN guidelines.

ANY entity which gets IP space from ARIN or any RIR should have clear 
and correct and up to date records, and if they choose to 'allocate' (or 
rent, or lease, or lend) to another party, the records should clearly 
indicate who they would abrogate responsibility to for the duration of 
that agreement.

Getting IP addresses is a privilege, and a clear record of the 
responsible party holding those privileges is mandated, and should 
always be mandated.

And for anyone who doesn't like the SWIP mechanism, they can easily SWIP 
the whole range to indicate their own 'rwhois' server, which many do, 
(even though many records are inaccurate) and they can then handle the 
requirement for clear concise records themselves via their own 'rwhois' 
server.

SWIP is NOT used solely by ARIN for justifications, however it can be 
used by a responsible party to help provide supplementary information on 
which such justifications can be made.

It is more important for many other things, including who to contact 
when something goes wrong with a part of the internet.. and given the 
large increase in nefarious actors on the internet, it is important to 
have accurate information on the responsible party for that part of the 
internet.

I for one want to see ARIN do more, and be given a mandate to enforce 
the given requirements already in place.

On 17-06-02 12:34 PM, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
> I for one do not see why a suggestion is HORRIBLE.
>
> Of course, SWIP, like any other issue is not black and white.  There is
> a big difference between the current policy of requiring the
> registration of /29 or more of v4 and /64 or more of v6, and a different
> suggestion to ban SWIP servers.
>
> I see the proposal as more of changing the requirements of operators,
> such that if an operator wants to continue SWIP for its assignments, it
> would be free to do so, but other operators who may see this process as
> duplicate and a waste of time might elect to not do so.  Others might
> elect to continue to maintain SWIP for DMCA or other reasons to reduce
> ISP workload, or that operators belief in transparency.
>
> I would not support a proposal that would ban SWIP. Operators should be
> free to continue to do so, as long as it is disclosed to their
> customers. Looking at the future of no more IPv4 except the transfer
> market, the fact that this process will also run out at some point, and
> that IPv6 will be the protocol of the future, a serious look at the real
> need for SWIP is needed.
>
> Generally SWIP is used by ARIN to justify qualifications for IP space.
> For the community, SWIP is used to find out contacts for dealing with
> network connectivity issues, security and spam.  Only the first purpose
> is part of the ARIN policies.  Only the second part is used by operators.
>
> Because a /32 of v6 space is so large, almost all operators who have
> obtained their block of space is never going to be going back for more.
> Thus, I suggest a compromise might be to stop requiring SWIP for v6,
> except in the case of those operators who need completed SWIP records to
> justify expanding their v6 allocation.
>
> By elimination of the SWIP requirement for v6 assignments for operators
> not intending to expand beyond their initial block, this would kinda
> give us a test bed to find out if lack of SWIP causes any real issues.
> Personally, I doubt this will make any real difference, as there is many
> operators who currently ignore SWIP for both protocols.  After such a
> test, the next step would eliminate the v4 SWIP requirement, or the
> community might let it die as v6 becomes the primary protocol.
>
> Remember, those who have actual allocations with ARIN will continue to
> be recorded in the normal whois, and those contacts can still be used
> for contact with operators who have elected not to populate SWIP with data.
>
> I tend to think, just like the discussion over POC indirect contact
> data, that ARIN needs to use all its time on the resources that it has
> directly assigned, and not waste staff time on SWIP, or indirect
> contacts, which are really 2 ways of talking about the same group of
> people, those that have received assignments from their ISP of address
> space.
>
> Keeping the Whois clean is hard enough with those with direct resources,
> why not limit ARIN staff time to the Direct resources.
>
> Further, if SWIP is to continue, ISP's should not be able to add
> contacts such as email and phone numbers without the express permission
> of their customers as to what email and phone number to use.  One of the
> persons commenting at New Orleans was against removing the indirect POC
> annual notice, because it was the only way he was discovering the many
> POC records created for his organization without his direct knowledge.
> Instead of getting his permission, and telling the ISP what handle to
> use for the contact, each of his upstream ISP's around the world have
> been instead creating a new handle for this organization, leaving him to
> clean up the mess.
>
> He should have instead been complaining as to why ARIN allows each of
> these ISP's to add a contact handle without the permission of the person
> added.  Even the PPML requires verification the person wanted to be
> added before the PPML emails are received. Why should the creation of a
> POC handle in whois or SWIP be any different?
>
> By putting a process in place that requires advance consent before the
> POC goes into the database, at least the customer can control their
> destiny. Many Orgs use a specific Role handle for these types of emails,
> and in many cases email addresses that were never intended to be widely
> use end up in the database without the customer knowledge.
>
> Back to specifics, what "HORRIBLE" things are likely to happen if SWIP
> were to go away?  Lets talk.
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Michael Peddemors wrote:
>
>> On 17-06-01 11:01 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>> I agree. Its easy to conclude that SWIP may possibly have outlived it's
>>> usefulness and value to ARIN or it's members. Maybe the better policy
>>> modification is to get rid of SWIP entirely and relieve operators of an
>>> unnecessary burden?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>
>> HORRIBLE idea...
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Catch the Magic of Linux..."
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
>> Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
>> "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
>>
>> This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and
>> intended
>> solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
>> addressed.
>> Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
>> those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the
>> company.
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> 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.
>>

-- 
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.