[arin-ppml] Discussion on elimination of SWIP requirements.
jcurran at arin.net
Sun Jun 4 16:18:37 EDT 2017
On 4 Jun 2017, at 11:01 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 03:46:21PM +0000, John Curran wrote:
>> As noted earlier, if this community develops and adopts policy regarding how
>> the number registry is to be operated, ARIN will indeed implement such policy
>> (including marking or revocation of number resources blocks as appropriate
>> per policy.) I am in no way advocating for, or against, any policy change, but
>> simply making clear that the ARIN community does have the ability to specify
>> how the registry will be operated and ARIN will enforce any resulting policy,
>> at least with respect to registry operation.
> I appreciate (and am confident) that ARIN (the organization) will
> implement such policies as those the community adopts. My point is
> rather that ARIN does not really have the power people seem to be
> Let's suppose that the community came up with a policy that required
> some sort of "enforcement" that resulted in IP address space being
> taken away.
> Suppose it were IPv4 address space. It would have to be pulled out of
> service for quite some time because ensuring that old routes didn't
> remain in place would be needed. That very "pulling out of service"
> would presumably result in some sort of legal action, which itself
> would bring the entire RIR arrangement into disrepute. Moreover,
> there'd be little incentive for the operator in question to give in,
> so that operator might well just keep using the space anyway.
> (Indeed, they'd probably get injunctive relief for some period of
> time.) If the operator were large enough, ARIN's authority to do this
> effectively would be blunted, which would be worse for ARIN and all of
> us collectively than it would be for the supposed ill-behaved party.
> Given the size of the v6 address space, the consequences would be even
> more ridculous. Since there are operational stability reasons to
> prefer "pristine" space over previously-used space, and given the
> current size of the available v6 pool, the space would be taken out of
> service under the policy. The chance that the space would not
> continue to be used by the offender is tiny, and any attempt to
> enforce that would be subject to restraint of trade complaints.
> I know that ARIN will faithfully implement community policy. What I
> am suggesting is that the community had better, in formulating such
> policy, understand the limits of its power.
You are correct that outcome would ultimately depend on the operator community
supporting the policy (and its potential implications if it called for revocation and
re-issuance) Note that we presently do precisely this (revoke and reissue) for
some address blocks and the operator community seems to have no difficulty
in following the registry regarding their practices in routing the changed address
The fact that the operator community has to both develop the policy and then
support its implementation isn’t a bug - it’s a feature of the Internet number
President and CEO
More information about the ARIN-PPML