[arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)
hostmaster at uneedus.com
hostmaster at uneedus.com
Fri May 26 21:33:49 EDT 2017
On Sat, 27 May 2017, Peter Thimmesch wrote:
> 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.
> 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?
Paradise On Line Inc.
More information about the ARIN-PPML