SWIP netblocks

[ginny listman]

You are correct in your belief that not everyone understands CIDR.  If it
requires ARIN to do some education, then that is what we would like to do.
Yes, there may be more SWIP rejections, but that shouldn't prevent us
from doing what should be done. As far as old blocks, we would not change
what is currently in the database without permission from the POC.  I
would be wrong of us to assume that the lack of CIDR bit boundary is due
to a lack of knowledge. It may be necessary for ARIN to address each
SWIPed netblock that is in question.

Ginny

On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Tanya Hinman wrote:

> It sounds like a good idea to enforce SWIP on the bit boundary, but I
> believe many times SWIPs that are not on the bit boundary are completed by
> individuals that do not completely understand CIDR. This may cause more SWIP
> rejections for ARIN. Also, how will this affect the old blocks that are
> SWIPped incorrectly? Will ARIN require that they all be reswipped or will
> the old blocks be left as is?
> 
> Tanya
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dbwg-request at arin.net [mailto:dbwg-request at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> ginny listman
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 11:10 AM
> To: dbwg at arin.net
> Subject: SWIP netblocks
> 
> 
> 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
>