<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space'>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I can’t specifically speak for Owen, but at the conclusion of
his message I believe he meant to say “Toronto” instead of “Dearborn”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Bill<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Owen
DeLong<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 29, 2010 2:05 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Leo Bicknell<br>
<b>Cc:</b> ppml@arin.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] Customer Confidentially and IPv6<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'><br>
</span>Well, what happens in IPv6? In the NRPM today, 6.5.4.4 states
"All<br>
/56 and larger assignments to end sites are required to be registered".<br>
So for instance if the cable modem provider today who provides a<br>
single dynamic IP via DHCP and puts none of them in SWIP decides<br>
to provide every customer with a /48 (as many want them to do) or<br>
even a /56, via DHCP-PD they will be required to put those dynamic<br>
assignments into SWIP.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal>Actually, as I interpret the NRPM, they would be required to
put the<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>covering prefix of the DHCP pool into SWIP as a DHCP Pool,
but,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>there is no need for the DHCP daemon to update SWIPS.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>If that isn't the case, you are correct that that area of
policy needs<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>work.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>However, for static persistent assignments of /56s or
shorter prefixes<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>to customers, I think it is perfectly reasonable to require
SWIP just<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>as we require it for /29 and shorter today. I do not see a
need to<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>expand customer anonymity beyond the current residential<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>requirement.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>So we are at a cross roads
where we are poised either to add literally<br>
tens of millions of records to SWIP and cause a new dump of customer<br>
databases to ARIN; or perhaps we will inadvertently force many ISP's<br>
to hand out /60's and /64's to customers so they don't have to deal<br>
with putting these customers into WHOIS. I think either would be<br>
a disservice to the community.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal>I'm uncertain why they couldn't use /57s even if what you
say were<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>true, but, again, I think that transient dynamic assignments
are not<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>subject to that requirement.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Given IPv4's end game is near I
don't really care how SWIP gets<br>
applied to IPv4 anymore. It is what it is, and there is no reason<br>
to revisit the issue. However, IPv6 fundamentally alters some of<br>
the arguments used with respect to who is in the database and how<br>
they are listed. I think the AC would be wise to take this proposal<br>
and use it to foster a discussion of WHOIS in an IPv6 world. Privacy<br>
of residential customers has clearly been an ongoing concern in<br>
various policies, and if IPv6 lists whole classes of users that are<br>
not listed today then the level of concern will likely skyrocket.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class=MsoNormal>I find it interesting that you expressed support for the
petition in this<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>case. As I understand it, the petition, if it succeeds will
bring this<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>IPv4-only proposal to the floor in Dearborn for adoption
discussion.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Owen<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>