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

Chris James chris at datacate.com
Wed Jun 14 11:37:01 EDT 2017


Resending as we discovered my messages were not posting to PPML.

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Chris James <chris at datacate.com> wrote:

> Difficult to disagree w/Martin's logic. If we use SWIP to determine
> eligibility for additional resources in the current environment; SWIP is
> pointless thus the policy is a waste of time to all involved and this whole
> back and forth is tiresome.
>
> If we wish to use SWIP as a means to manage abuse issues, then more
> stringent guidelines are needed. I am not saying we need to penalize, but
> at least standards. I agree with the /56 idea.
>
> John Curran (ARIN) Please advise ARIN's point of view. If you had to
> choose 1 and only 1; is SWIP for Abuse or Allocation?
> If, then, else, start at the top.
>
> Best-
> Chris James
> *__________________________________________*
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hey there. Thanks. Inline.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:26 AM, <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 1) According to the policy manual, it appears that SWIP is the tool for
>>> an ISP to document the address assignments made to its customers, so that
>>> when more address space is requested, ARIN can determine qualifications.
>>>
>>>
>> Which is easily duplicated from the initial provisioning and/or CDR
>> system.
>>
>>
>>> 2) Although not directly expressed in the policy manual, it is also a
>>> tool for operators to contact the administrators of blocks of address space
>>> when there is an abuse event.
>>>
>>>
>> This could be a benefit if the data was reliable or widely actionable.
>>
>>
>>> Very few ISP's have come back for anything more than their original /32
>>> allocation of v6, so that purpose might not be as important in the future.
>>>
>>
>> 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,
>>
>> -M<
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
>

-- 
This e-mail message may contain confidential or legally privileged 
information and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). 
Any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the 
taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is prohibited. 
E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they 
can be intercepted, amended, or contain viruses. Anyone who communicates 
with us by e-mail is deemed to have accepted these risks. This company is 
not responsible for errors or omissions in this message and denies any 
responsibility for any damage arising from the use of e-mail. Any opinion 
and other statement contained in this message and any attachment are solely 
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170614/74ffa701/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list