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

hostmaster at uneedus.com hostmaster at uneedus.com
Thu Jun 15 10:52:24 EDT 2017

Considering the reaction the Community gave to the first version of this 
draft policy regarding SWIP changes for IPv4, and the near universal need 
to keep the v4 SWIP boundary where it is currently at 8 ip's or more, I 
doubt there is much support for SWIP elimination.  This is why I asked to 
strike the IPv4 parts totally from the Draft Policy, which have been done.

While the discussion on elimination of SWIP might be a useful as a preview 
to a future Draft Policy, this Draft Policy does not address SWIP at all.

This draft policy seeks to eliminate the current unfair policy of 
requiring 100% SWIP registration for v6, while allowing those with less 
than 8 IPv4 addresses to avoid SWIP.

The only thing to really decide with this Draft Policy is the question of 
at what level the IPv6 SWIP line should be drawn.  It appears that nearly 
everyone who has expressed an opinion thinks that /48 should be subject to 
SWIP, and that a /56 should not.  It has also been pointed out that /52 
lies between these two points.

I guess the only remaining question for my proposal is which side of the 
SWIP line should we treat a /52.  If we think /52 should be subject to 
SWIP, the language we need is "more than a /56".  Otherwise if /52 should 
NOT have a SWIP requirement, the language we need is "more than a /52".

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, John Curran wrote:

> On 2 Jun 2017, at 4:14 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?
> Chris -
> I had to chuckle a bit at your question….  ARIN is _your_ Regional Internet Registry.
> This means that you (the collective community) specify what we are to do, and then we do it –
> not the other way around.   While I have personally been involved with several nationwide ISPs
> and have run a secure hosting company, my particular views must be subsumed into the ARIN
> community’s determination on such matters.
> (The status quo will be maintained until the community (or Board) provides direction on updated
> policy direction.)
> Thanks!
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list