SWIP netblocks

[Linda]

Satellite Communications (NETBLK-UU-63-65-12) UU-63-65-12
                                                          63.65.12.0 -
63.65.12.255
     Cotas LTDA. (NETBLK-SCSI-COTAS-2) SCSI-COTAS-2       63.65.12.0 -
63.65.12.254

We have one /24 that was allocated by UUNET to SCSI, who allocated it to
COTAS.  Our swip template was submitted with .0 to .255, and COTAS's was also
submitted with a .0 to .255.  I called the ARIN help desk regarding this
matter and I was told that the only way to correctly show the parent child
relationship was if the child was listed in the database as .254.  The
database was changed by ARIN because after we allocated the /24 to COTAS the
db initially listed the order as UUNET to COTAS to SCSI.

Linda

ginny listman wrote:

> In reviewing what is currently stored in the database, there are a number
> of SWIPed netblocks that are not on the bit boundary.  For example,
> instead of SWIPing 0 to 255, an entire /24, 1 to 254 was SWIPed.  In the
> future, we will be operating in a cidr world, including displaying cidr
> blocks in whois.  For a block that is 1 to 254, the display will include 2
> /32, 2 /31, 2 /30, 2 /29, 2 /28, 2 /27, and 2 /26.  It would be a whole
> lot cleaner to display 1 /24.
>
> How do people feel about enforcing allocations/assignments based on a
> single cidr block?  I could see an occasion where someone may want to
> assign 2-4 cidr blocks at a single time, but can we enforce, or strongly
> encouraging, a policy like this?  SWIP on the bit boundary.
>
> Ginny