Considering the reaction the Community gave to the first version of this
draft policy regarding SWIP changes for IPv4, and the near universal need
to keep the v4 SWIP boundary where it is currently at 8 ip's or more, I
doubt there is much support for SWIP elimination. This is why I asked to
strike the IPv4 parts totally from the Draft Policy, which have been done.
While the discussion on elimination of SWIP might be a useful as a preview
to a future Draft Policy, this Draft Policy does not address SWIP at all.
This draft policy seeks to eliminate the current unfair policy of
requiring 100% SWIP registration for v6, while allowing those with less
than 8 IPv4 addresses to avoid SWIP.
The only thing to really decide with this Draft Policy is the question of
at what level the IPv6 SWIP line should be drawn. It appears that nearly
everyone who has expressed an opinion thinks that /48 should be subject to
SWIP, and that a /56 should not. It has also been pointed out that /52
lies between these two points.
I guess the only remaining question for my proposal is which side of the
SWIP line should we treat a /52. If we think /52 should be subject to
SWIP, the language we need is "more than a /56". Otherwise if /52 should
NOT have a SWIP requirement, the language we need is "more than a /52".
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, John Curran wrote:
On 2 Jun 2017, at 4:14 AM, Chris James <[email protected]> wrote:
Difficult to disagree w/Martin's logic. If we use SWIP to determine eligibility
for additional resources in the current environment; SWIP is pointless thus the
policy is a waste of time to all involved and this whole back and forth is
tiresome.
If we wish to use SWIP as a means to manage abuse issues, then more stringent
guidelines are needed. I am not saying we need to penalize, but at least
standards. I agree with the /56 idea.
John Curran (ARIN) Please advise ARIN's point of view. If you had to choose 1
and only 1; is SWIP for Abuse or Allocation?
Chris -
I had to chuckle a bit at your question???. ARIN is _your_ Regional Internet
Registry.
This means that you (the collective community) specify what we are to do, and
then we do it ???
not the other way around. While I have personally been involved with several
nationwide ISPs
and have run a secure hosting company, my particular views must be subsumed
into the ARIN
community???s determination on such matters.
(The status quo will be maintained until the community (or Board) provides
direction on updated
policy direction.)
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
