[arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.1705261913060.30859 at localhost.localdomain>, 
hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:

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

Just when I though that I was beginning to understand, now I am *really*
confused.  You say "Only the largest IPv4 customers are subject to SWIP",
but I have no idea if, when you talk about "IPv4 customers" you really
only mean to refer to those IPv4 users that obtain direct allocations from
ARIN (?)  If you meant instead all IPv4 users, then quite obviously,
your statement is -not- true, since the IPv4 SWIP rule applies to
anything and anybody who has a /29 or larger, and many of these entities
are clearly by no means "the largest IPv4 customers".

And even if we talk only about those obtaining direct allocations from
ARIN, I've seen many hosting companies that have only a /22 or sometimes
even smaller, and yet it would seem to me that when they give out
sub-blocks of /29  or larger, they are clearly subject to the rule,
and yet many of these are also by no means "the largest IPv4 customers".

So, either way you elect define the term "IPv4 customer" it would seem
to me that the assertion you just made is falacious on its face, and
that in fact many entities that do not qualify as being "big" in any
sense are arguably subject to the existing SWIP rule for IPv4.

>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.

You say that like its a bad thing.

I don't know about you, but where I live, even the smallest cars are
required to have documentation and a valid license plate in order to
travel on public roadways:

http://www.toxel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/smallcars02.jpg

It's just a matter of public safety.  A very slight and small inconvenience
for everyone, for the sake of the greater common public good.

>... the current {SWIP} 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 would have to agree that there would seem to be an imbalance of
(un)fairness there.  I'm not persuaded that the correct solution is
to loosen the rules so as to allow more people with "small" cars to
drive around without license plates.

But to reiterate, all of this is pretty much meaningless anyway, given
the context of absolute non-enforcement of the rules for both IPv4 and
IPv6.

>I have never seen anyone propose SWIP at the /32 level.

Oh!  Well!  Please then, please allow me to be the first to do so!
(And now I shall duck discreetly behind a curtain, so as to avoid
being struck by the inevitable bits of rotten fruits and vegatables
being tossed, furiously, in the general direction of my head.)

>The current v6 standard of 100% SWIP is UNREASONABLE.

I feel quite sure that at the time when the notion of automobile license
plates was first proposed, many stood up and raised the exact same
objection, i.e. that the new rule was totally unreasonable, especially
as it was to be applied to literally -every- powered vehicle operating
on public highways.  And yet here we are, a century or so later, and
yet these days the relevant Wikipedia page doesn't even contain a
"Controversy" subsection, and most probably, every person who has ever
been struck in a hit-and-run incident may wonder how we ever did without
them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration_plate#United_States

>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.

As I made reference to earlier, in my own state of California, we have
not long ago legalized recreational marijuana.  Now *everyone* within
the state, both pot heads and non- pot heads, can be said to follow the
law.

If the goal is to establish a more law-abiding society, then it cannot
be argued that this is quite certainly one way to achieve that, i.e.
simply eliminating the existing legal restriction.  Some might well
argue however that this is sort-of a perverse and back-handed way of
achieving universal compliance with the law.  (That is not to say that
this approach is lacking in merit.  It certainly appears to have yielded
tangible benefits, e.g. at and after the time of the repeal of prohibition.)

>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...

Your motives and goals are admirable, but in the utter absence of any
kind of meaningful enforcement, of either the existing rules or the
proposed modified ones, I personally cannot envision there being any
notable or substantial difference in the actual behavior of the community
as a whole, no matter what the fine details of the relevant (unenforced)
rules might be.

This is not actually an argument against your proposal, and it would be
wrong to interpret it that way.  This is a argument *for* the actual
enforcement of The Rules, whatever they may be, at any given moment.
In the utter absence of such enforcement, the rules themselves become
nothing other than an object of well-deserved ridicule, as it appears
they are, at the present time.


Regards,
rfg