[arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Sat May 27 14:44:48 EDT 2017


On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com>
wrote:

>
> In message <CAGkMwz74_-gu86OGMfC6WtyZ18WDxv=0pJfctDuR
> pg3Ze04k4A at mail.gmail.com>
> Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> I've been sitting here, reading and re-reading the above sentence,
> several times, for the past few minutes, hoping that I'd be able to
> read it deeply enough so that it would eventually convey to me some
> not-totally-illogical thought or idea or concept, but before that
> actually occurred, my head exploded.
>
> The fundamental problem is that I can't even begin to wrap my head
> around -any- understanding of -any- alternative universe in which
> having those who play by the rules and those who don't be "on a level
> playing field" is either a Good Thing or a Desirable Thing.
>
> My utter befuddlement was furthermore raised to a higher power by
> taking into account also the notion of different groups being placed
> "on a level playing field" with respect to rules that... as you noted
> earlier in the same sentence... aren't even being enforced.  Aren't
> we all, already, and by definition, "on a level playing field" with
> respect to any and all rules, laws, statutes, commandments, or edicts
> which are not being actively enforced?
>

I think you're over-interpreting my use of the level playing field
metaphor.  All I meant was this: If someone who likes to follow the rules,
whether they're enforced or not, wants to assign IPv6 addresses to their
end users, they will feel they have to SWIP all such assignments.  Someone
who isn't so punctilious will look at the current /64 SWIP rule, say "that
is stupid", and not do so. As a result, it becomes far more costly for the
rule-follower to roll out IPv6 than for the person who's ok violating the
unenforced rule.

It would be far better if we relax or remove any such unreasonable and
unenforceable rules from the NRPM, so that those who feel they need to
follow such rules are not disadvantaged relative to those who know they
don't really have to and are willing to ignore them.

As such, I support the stated intent of this policy for IPv6.

On the topic of "what should the threshold be", I think requiring SWIPs for
(non-residential) assignments is actually what we want here. If we want to
pick a prefix size, then I think "more than a /56" or "/48 or larger" would
be reasonable.

-Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170527/d7f852e9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list