I think the SWIP requirement should be the same as what is routable
internet wide.
/24 for IPV4 and whatever for IPV6. Anything less is the /24 holder's
problem to deal with.
If it is public routable then require SWIP otherwise let the routable
holder manage it.
Blacklists deal with it that way. Every had a /25 that the other
associated /25 had spammers on it?
Lots of fun! :-)
Now if the blacklist characters would work with the smaller IP ranges
that would be great, but will they?
Paul McNary
pmcn...@cameron.net
On 6/6/2017 3:10 PM, Roberts, Orin wrote:
/“Since we require SWIP for IPv4 /24s”///
ARIN also currently requires a SWIP for an IPv4 /29 , which makes
“/60" a more applicable reference point; unless the intent is to
minimize or eliminate SWIPs for IPv6 (ISPs won’t mind).
Orin
*From:*ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] *On Behalf Of
*William Herrin
*Sent:* June-06-17 3:04 PM
*To:* Leif Sawyer
*Cc:* arin-ppml@arin.net
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of
Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Leif Sawyer <lsaw...@gci.com
<mailto:lsaw...@gci.com>> wrote:
The boundaries at /60, /56, and /48 have all been discussed. If
one is more favorable than
the other, and you would like to see the proposal edited to use
that one, we will certainly
take that under advisory.
Hi Leif,
IMHO, IPv6 /48 = IPv4 /24. Since we require SWIP for IPv4 /24s, we
should require it for IPv6 /48s.
I'd be comfortable with "more than a /56" and "more than a /60." I
prefer "more than a /56."
I would oppose "/60 or more" or "/56 or more" because I believe that
would encourage ISPs to engage in unhealthy assignment practices to
avoid SWIP reporting, such as assigning /64s, /61s and /57s.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com
<mailto:her...@dirtside.com> b...@herrin.us <mailto:b...@herrin.us>
Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
