I see the 2 proposals as quite a bit different.
The first suggestion of SWIP business users, and not residential users I
do not see as best. I would venture that for business, a numeric majority
of these customers have only a single IPv4 address. Since these mostly
small businesses are really no different network wise than residences, why
should an ISP have to waste resources registering SWIP, just because they
happened to think of the future and provided an assignment of v6 space to
their customers? Under v4 no SWIP unless they reach 8 IPv4's.
The second suggestion is more reasonable, which is to only require SWIP if
that v6 space appears alone in the GRT. Setting the standard at "/55 or
more" effectively means that those with assignments smaller than can be
advertised in the GRT do not have to SWIP. "/48 or more" would do the
same thing, but allow the customers a larger v6 block. Maybe the operative
phrase to the proposal could be something like "/48 or more, unless the
assignment does not appear in the Global Routing Table". This would do
exactly what is suggested.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Jason Schiller wrote:
I am replying to bring the conversation to one of the suggestions
on the table.
Owen DeLong's suggesting of SWIP all IPv6 business users, and
not Residential users,
Or Kevin Blumberg (and David Farmer) suggestion of SWIP'ing all
prefixes that might show up as a more specific in the global routing
table.
These are roughly the same result, and have a question of which
has a more easily understandable policy.
The question is who here supports one or both of these
proposals?
Who oppose one (if so which one) or both of these proposals?
I would like to suggest one friendly amendment...
- ISPs are required to SWIP IP space that is a reallocation.
- ISPs are required to SWIP IP space that is a reassignment
whenever that down stream customer requests such. That
SWIP must be a reassign detail, reassign simple, or a
residential privacy (if applicable) per the customer request.
___Jason
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:42 AM, John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote:
On 17 Jul 2017, at 9:47 AM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
,,,
This is the problem. ARIN is not a carrier. While disclosure to ARIN
to obtain number resources for the connection is OK, Public disclosure by
or at the direction of ARIN policy of elements like domain name, name,
address and telephone number is not. Since name, address, telephone number
and domain name have already been identified have been defined in the order
as elements of CPNI that are protected, world disclosure by ARIN or because
of ARIN rules would not be a protected disclosure.
The ISP might also be in trouble for providing the information to ARIN,
if they know that ARIN intends to publish this information in a public
directory, rather than disclosing it to ARIN solely to maintain number
resources. As suggested by the OP, might have to call them customer 1-n.
However that would violate the NRPM as written. Since the City, State and
Zip Code are part of the address, even the "protected" residential records
CPNI are being disclosed in violation of the CPNI Order.
There is a big difference between disclosure to ARIN for taking care of
numbering policy, and disclosure to the entire world. Third party
disclosure is the main thing that the CPNI rules are intended to address.
That is only permitted when it is needed for the provision of service.
Compliance with registry policy is indeed necessary to receive number
resources;
it is up to you to determine whether IP number resources are necessary for
provision
of your Internet services.
If you choose not to make use of Internet Numbers Registry System
resources for
provision of Internet services (or not assign them to your customers),
then that is
your choice. Some ISPs may feel that it is necessary to seek consent of
customers
who wish to have public IP number resources assigned in the size that
would result in
their publication in the public registry, whereas others may not based on
their reading
of applicable regulations regarding handling of CPNI information. Such
choices are
an operational and business matter left to each ISP to decide based on
their individual
understanding and circumstances.
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 (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.
--
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschil...@google.com|571-266-0006
_______________________________________________
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.
