<html><body class="ApplePlainTextBody" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br>I'd like to know what folks here are thinking regarding<br>IPv6 and SWIPs. In particular, a primary driver for SWIPs<br>today is to enable justification of additional addresses<br>(when the time comes). SWIP data is clearly invaluable to <br>network operations and security folks, as well as law <br>enforcement, when investigating or dealing with various <br>incidents (not to mention many other uses, as many of you<br>well know).<br><br>I suspect that with such large IPv6 allocations, the need <br>to keep SWIP/(rwhois) data up to date will diminish, severely <br>hindering folks that use SWIP data on a regular basis. <br><br>Furthermore, while development of an RPKI is underway, it<br>really only deals with certification of routed number spaces <br>(as currently specified). While I _think we don't want all <br>subsequent assignment/allocation data in the RPKI, I'm worried <br>we won't have it anywhere with IPv6 -- or in many different <br>places and formats.<br><br>I suspect at least a BCP (some form, some where) and some <br>community guidance is in order along these lines (i.e., <br>SWIP-esque data is a must to some reasonable level of <br>granularity), I'd like to see what folks here are thinking <br>along these lines.. <br><br>If I've missed this discussion here (or in other forums)<br>references welcome, a cursory search yields nothing expressly<br>related to this topic.<br><br>Thanks in advance, <br><br>-danny<br><br><br></body></html>