<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font>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.<br><br></div></blockquote>Actually, as I interpret the NRPM, they would be required to put the</div><div>covering prefix of the DHCP pool into SWIP as a DHCP Pool, but,</div><div>there is no need for the DHCP daemon to update SWIPS.</div><div><br></div><div>If that isn't the case, you are correct that that area of policy needs</div><div>work.</div><div><br></div><div>However, for static persistent assignments of /56s or shorter prefixes</div><div>to customers, I think it is perfectly reasonable to require SWIP just</div><div>as we require it for /29 and shorter today. I do not see a need to</div><div>expand customer anonymity beyond the current residential</div><div>requirement.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>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.<br><br></div></blockquote>I'm uncertain why they couldn't use /57s even if what you say were</div><div>true, but, again, I think that transient dynamic assignments are not</div><div>subject to that requirement.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>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.<br><br></div></blockquote>I find it interesting that you expressed support for the petition in this</div><div>case. As I understand it, the petition, if it succeeds will bring this</div><div>IPv4-only proposal to the floor in Dearborn for adoption discussion.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>