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

Chris James chris at datacate.com
Thu Jun 15 10:10:32 EDT 2017

I agree with your assessment John, thank you. I asked because it seems many
people were heavily focused on the whole point being allocation and not
intended for abuse. While this may be true, the entire process has proven
effective in abuse management.

The question I would ask the community is simple and has been proposed

If the direction SWIPs have taken in recent years is less that of
justification and more that of abuse management, is a /56 stringent enough?
Should we consider focusing on ways to improve the abuse management process?

Personally I would like to see the big providers SWIP more of their /29 or
greater allocations or really anything to a small business with more than a
basic internet package. I know they charge horrendous amounts to give small
businesses "13 usable IPs". ($30.00+ monthly). I do not know what the rest
of you see out there and I am not trying to start a conversation about
abuse sources, but from my records I see just as many problems from /8s
belonging to ABC Cable and XYZ Wireless as I do AFRINIC and RIPE.

When I forward an abuse complaint to ABC Cable, I never see a response (nor
do I care), but I also rarely if ever see attacks stop. HOWEVER and this is
my point entirely - More often than not the attack is unknown to the small
business who's equipment has been compromised due to any number of generic

I strongly believe more SWIPs will generate better communication with end
users and increase awareness of compromise thus creating a safer
environment. If not by a little at least.


On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:52 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On 15 Jun 2017, at 9:43 AM, Chris James <chris at datacate.com> wrote:
> ...
> Maybe I was not clear. Assuming you spend far more time reading each and
> every policy proposal that I do; and your position within ARIN:
> Specifically from >>your<< point of view; do you see the SWIP policy
> currently in place to lean more to abuse management, or allocation
> justification.
> My recollection of history is that SWIPs originated for the purpose of
> reporting utilization to
> support subsequent allocations, but the resulting entries in the public
> Whois have proved to
> be important to law enforcement, network researcher and anti-abuse
> efforts.
> The “correct” trajectory for the ARIN community going forward in this
> regard remains to be
> determined.
> Thanks,
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO

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/20170615/7c83f2cb/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list