[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

hostmaster at uneedus.com hostmaster at uneedus.com
Wed May 31 13:23:34 EDT 2017

This idea kinda misses the entire point of what I seek to do with this 

The entire reason for my proposal is to make v6 equai or better than v4 
when it comes to assignment registrations or SWIP.  Since the smallest 
possible v6 network is /64, the current policy requires ALL v6 customers, 
regardless of static or dynamic assignments to be registered in SWIP. IPv4 
customers of all types do not trigger a SWIP requirement, unless more than 
7 v4 addresses are assigned.

At nearly every ISP the vast majority of customers have only a single v4 
address.  This includes my home connection, and with this address I am 
able to run my own mailserver, webserver and gopher server.  NONE of the 
proposals for v4 have ever suggested that I should have to register my 
single v4 address in SWIP.  Of course this type of talk I see as a wish 
that the standard for SWIP in v4 was a /32.

I have heard the community regarding total equality between v4 and v6, 
with only one other commenter in favor, and have given up on trying to 
change the current v4 SWIP standard from /29 or more.  Therefore, read my 
draft as ONLY the v6 change.

As to my IPv6 proposal regarding SWIP, based on the comments received so 
far, except for one person who totally rejected my Draft because changing 
the IPv4 standard for SWIP to more than 16 addresses from the current 8 
addresses, everyone else responding supports changing the current point 
from a /64, or SWIP for everyone, to some level that small customers do 
not have to be SWIP'ed.

The only point of discussion with this draft is to what level should be 
the maximum point be that does not require a SWIP registration.  Since a 
vote for a bigger block without registration, effectively is a vote to 
allow the smaller included blocks without registration, I can say that of 
those who have expressed a preference, all are in favor of a /64 not 
needing SWIP.  when you add up the preferences from the announcement of 
this draft until now, /56 seems to be the point of the majority.

Do remember, that current policy (2.14) says that each site should receive 
a /48.  I am asking for /60 exempt from SWIP, so some subnetting can be 
done, but of course would be happy with /56 being the max without SWIP 
instead.  In my opinion, I have no problem with all assignments below the 
recommended /48 not triggering a SWIP requirement.  Also, note that I am 
not proposing any changes whatsover to the enforcement policies of ARIN, 
and this is a subject for another Draft.

As far as the suggestion to only SWIP the parent block, that would not 
work at all with my current WISP.  This network assigns a /26 to each 
network point-to-multipoint sector, and the wan address is merely an 
address on that network.  ALL customers regardless of type are placed on 
the subnet of their assigned link, and everything is static.  Unlike 
"normal" network means, they could actually assign exactly 7 IPv4's to a 

I also question why 100% SWIP on v6, because 99.9% of ISP's are not coming 
back for a new assignment.  While SWIP is useful for network security and 
contact needs, this is NOT the purpose it was established.  It was 
established to document an ISP's address utilization rates for ARIN to be 
used when the ISP requests more space.  Since very few have come back to 
ARIN for more v6 space, I think its purpose is not needed until such time 
as an ISP needs to get its ducks together to ask for more IPv6 space, 
which with the larger space of v6 will be never for most ISP's.

I also do not think ARIN's policies should be supporting the business 
models of the Geolocation providers, of which one of the most annoying 
customers of same is the Copyright Trolls.  Even the "Residential Privacy" 
people must publically declare a zipcode, a goldmine for the Geolocation 

I have recommended customers reducing log retention to 2 weeks, enough to 
cover true network security problems, but making response to the Copyright 
Trolls very easy, since with such a policy, a truthful answer of "Sorry, 
no information" reduces the staff time for these requests to close to 

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Wed, 31 May 2017, Jason Schiller wrote:

> WRT IPv6 can we solve this by requiring all fixed IPv6 customers
> (still allowing residential privacy) to SWIP, and allow dynamic
> customers up to (and including) /56 to only SWIP the parent
> block to the residential market?
> We would need someone to come up with a usable definition
> of fixed and dynamic...
> Any statically routed network is considered fixed.
> Any network announced by a customer to a provider
> via a routing protocol is considered fixed.
> Any network provided by a provider to a customer
> with the expectation that the address will not change
> is considered fixed (even if dynamic mechanisms are
> used to provide the address)
> [excluding re-terminations and divestitures]
> Any network with a customer specified ip6.arpa address
> is considered fixed.
> Only networks provided by a dynamic mechanism such as
> DHCPv6 with a sufficiently short lease such as 1 year or less
> and no customer expectation that the address will persist if
> the lease times out may be considered dynamic.
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:41 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Roberts, Orin <oroberts at bell.ca> wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>> I am avidly following this discussion and based on my daily observances
>>> (daily swips /subnets ), I would say Andy is closest to being practical.
>>> Leave the IPv4 /29 requirements alone, THIS LIMIT IS ALREADY BEING PUSHED
>>> AT DAILY BY NON-RESIDENTIAL USERS and only the vague ARIN policy prevents
>>> total chaos.
>>> With regards to IPv6, I would recommend ANY USER/ENTITY/ORG that requests
>>> a /56 OR LARGER NETWORK assignment be swiped.
>>> That would still leave /60 to /64 assignments as minimum assignment or
>>> for dynamic usage for either residential or other usage.
>> Howdy,
>> I don't like putting the SWIP requirement at /56 or larger because I think
>> that would encourage ISPs to assign /60s instead of /56s. The IPv6 experts
>> I've read seem to have a pretty strong consensus that the minimum
>> assignment to an end user should be either /48 or /56. Setting ARIN policy
>> that encourages assignments smaller than -both- of these numbers would be a
>> bad idea IMHO.
>> Again I remind everyone that a /64 assignment to an end user, even for
>> dynamic or residential use, is absolutely positively 100% wrong. Doing so
>> prevents the end user from configuring their local lans as IPv6 is
>> designed. They need at least a /60 for that. If you are assigning /64's to
>> end users, you are doing it wrong.
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>> --
>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> -- 
> _______________________________________________________
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list