[arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Fri May 26 18:45:58 EDT 2017


On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com>
wrote:

>
> In message <8A3A301D-39B5-4F81-8E2C-90E23B81919E at panix.com>,
> David Huberman <daveid at panix.com> wrote:
>
> >In short, there is an argument that the SWIP rules are no-op now. So to
> answer
> >your question directly; what do you do? Nothing. Those days are long gone
> >and ARIN has other focuses now.
>
> 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?
>

Pretty much, unless someone comes up with a new method of enforcing SWIP
rules.  Some of the discussions with law enforcement could eventually
result in such carrots or sticks, but no one has proposed any specifics yet.


>
> 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?
>

No, this proposal isn't drafting a new rule, but rather relaxing an
existing one that mostly isn't being observed or enforced, so that people
who follow the rules and those who don't are on a level playing field.

-Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170526/9413b83e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list