[arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

> So, let me see if I understand this...
>
> ARIN doesn't, can't, and most probably won't either enforce the existing
> (IPv4) SWIP rules, nor, for that matter, any new SWIP rules that may be
> drafted and/or promulgated with respect to IPv6.  Is that about the size
> of it?
>
> If so, then color me perplexed.  I'm not at all sure that I grasp the
> reason(s) why people on this list are spending/investing time and energy
> discussing and debating some new draft rule for IPv6 that also and likewise
> won't ever actually be enforced.
>
> Am I missing something?

I am the proposer of the current item regarding IPv6 Assignment 
Registration.

I wrote this proposal with all seriousness, and do not see it as head of a 
pin dancing.  When the rules for v4 likely affect less than 5-10% of the 
total customer base at an ISP, but adding IPv6 elevates it to 100%, this 
is wrong, and this does deserve a serious shot at repair.  I would like to 
see the percentages of v6 customers subject to this rule to be roughly the 
same as the current number of v4 customers subject to the rule.

In the IPv4 world, a majority of the total number of access circuits 
for Internet access only provide 1 global IP address.  In the case of 
mobile networks, you do not even get that, but rather an RFC1918 address 
behind some sort of NAT.  The current rule of /29 or more means that all 
these IPv4 customers are not, and never have been subject to SWIP rules. 
Generally only those doing hosting of some sort, or larger businesses 
actually request an amount of addresses that require SWIP.

Therefore, while we discuss how many access providers are ignoring the 
SWIP rules, do remember that the majority of ISP customers for IPv4 
internet access are NOT subject to the SWIP rules, since they have 1 or 
less dedicated IP addresses.

Only the largest IPv4 customers are subject to SWIP, not the majority of 
the total customer base.

When the standard was lowered to the /29 point, somehow the proposal at 
that time also decided to lower the v6 point from /48 to /64.  Of course, 
/64 means EVERY customer, even the very smallest must be subject to SWIP 
under the rules.  As noted we have gone a few years with only a few people 
requesting v6 assignments, and the SWIP requirement has been ignored to a 
large degree much to the same degree that v6 itself has been ignored.

The current rule for IPv6 is 100% is subject to SWIP.  Whereas maybe 10% 
or less of your customer base under v4 was subject to SWIP, the current 
requirement is 100% for v6.

How can you expect such a rule to be followed, and is it reasonable to 
subject the majority of the access customers to this rule for v6, when it 
has NEVER been the rule in v4? I have never seen anyone propose SWIP at 
the /32 level.  The current v6 standard of 100% SWIP is UNREASONABLE. This 
is why I am proposing a change in the standard.

Reasonable rules are more likely to be complied with, and whatever the 
rule is, I agree that the rules should not be ignored, and also agree that 
in fact, it is widely ignored.  If it were made more reasonable, I have 
hope that it might also be followed more.

If the Registration rule was made closer to the current v4 rule, such that 
does not catch most access provider customers, there will be fewer 
addresses to SWIP, and I believe it will be more likely than the current 
rule to be followed, as the number of assignments requiring registration 
will be vastly decreased from the current standard of 100% of v6.

While I doubt that this registration requirement is the "cause" of not 
providing IPv6 connections, it certainly adds to the excuses not to adopt.
We know that lots of excuses have been used, and we should do anything to 
cut back on the excuses.

In answer to the question as to the purpose of this proposal, it is to 
make the rules for SWIP more equal between IPv4 and IPv6.  Currently, IPv4 
only requires SWIP for a /29 or more, leaving the majority of access 
circuits without any SWIP requirement whatsoever.  This is NOT currently 
true for IPv6, which the policy manual requires registration for a /64 or 
more of space, which is basically 100%.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.