[arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, Peter Thimmesch wrote:

> Albert,
>
> I concur 100% with your goal here and believe that there is a path to 
> creating an equitable policy. Therefore I support, and ask others 
> responding to this thread, with the intent of your policy proposal.
>
> The sole question, outside of "size" of the v6 cut-off, is whether there 
> should be a mechanism to "punish" those that do not follow the policy.
>
> Can we work first to agree on the size cut-off and then address what, if 
> any, enforcement tools can be agreed upon?
>
> The draft proposed "more than a /60", is this acceptable to the 
> community? I support revising the current policy to this size.
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Thimmesch

My proposal has nothing whatsover to do with enforcement of the SWIP 
requirements. My proposal is only about what point, such as "more than a 
/60" should the policy requiring assignment registration be set for v6.

I have learned enough to suggest that the portion of my proposal to raise 
the v4 standard above /29 in the name of equality appears to not have 
support.  Thus, I am no longer advocating this change at all.

As to where the v6 line should be drawn, many commenters as well as myself 
agree that /64 is too low, as even small networks should be able to subnet 
itself for security and isolation reasons.  If there is anyone here who 
thinks that a /64 is enough and should be the line, lets hear the reasons.

My proposal is currently "More than a /60" which gives 16 subnets.  For 
most uses today, this is plenty, but others have suggested it be /56 or 
even one comment of /48.  Since we should remain on a nibble boundary, the 
choices are /48, /52, /56, /60 or /64.  The biggest network currently not 
requiring assignment registration under current policy is a /65, a non-
standard network size.

I would like to stay focused on what size network on a nibble boundary 
should the maximum be before triggering the assignment registration 
policy.  Other than /64, I would be happy with any of the other 
boundaries listed above.

Enforcement I think should be left to another proposal, and do not think 
that I am the one that will be drafting such a proposal, and do not think 
the enforcement issues are helpful in trying to decide where the boundary 
should be drawn in this policy proposal.  Please reserve these discussions 
for a future "enforcement" policy proposal, when we can discuss the need 
for SWIP, and the privacy implications for small networks. Currently 100% 
SWIP is required for ALL v6 assignments of /64 or larger. The residential 
customer is exempt from disclosure of street address and name, BUT a zip 
code/postal code is disclosed. Will we start seeing geolocation providers 
using this data?

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.