Hello Joe,
Thanks for the reply. A reminder that I'm *asking* a genuine question.
Now, I wrote:
Whois reassignments are not the proper place for the information LE
wants, in my opinion, and has almost no value to NOCs.
Joe replied:
I find this assertion at odds with both my experience and direct
inquiries to those in the anti-abuse community. Upon what basis
is it made?
So a few things.
1) I specifically said 'reassignments', and by that I meant end-user data.
I have always been in favor of 'reallocations' (to downstream ISPs) being
in Whois.
2) The *vast* majority (and we're talking 99%+ -- I've studied the data
many times) of end-user SWIP data is things like:
AT&T Internet Services SBCIS-SIS80-1005 (NET-69-0-0-0-1) 69.0.0.0 -
69.0.127.255
THE MEDICINE SHOPPE SBC069000000000030204 (NET-69-0-0-0-2) 69.0.0.0 -
69.0.0.7
When you lookup the specific /29, you get:
CustName: THE MEDICINE SHOPPE
Address: 310 ORANGE ST
City: NEW HAVEN
StateProv: CT
PostalCode: 06510
Country: US
... with vanilla AT*T contact information from the parent /17.
Yes: I assert this data has no value to NOCs or general internetworking
operations, in my experience, and I wrote that I do not believe this is
the proper place for LE to be gleaning it's info. (That's a whole other
conversation, but it's my opinion here.)
I don't understand how this SWIP data provides value in terms of
transparency? It is, as others have noted, just giving out customer lists
-- information which is typically considered confidential. ARIN policy
*can* require this information, but *should* it?
Additing to this conversation, two other items:
3) Since 2004, when Dave Barger first got up to a microphone at an ARIN
meeting (Reston) and admitted that his company's SWIPs were non-compliant
because of software issues, we've had huge swaths of SWIP data that is
just wrong. It's very difficult (especially at scale) to both publish and
maintain accurate SWIP data. There's a real cost to requiring accurate
SWIP data for providers -- large and small. If we're going to put this
cost on them for IPv6, I'd really like us to have a solid justification
that's relevant to 2017 network operations, and not based on what was true
in 1999.
4) And finally, we go back to an early convversation point that as
presently drafted, this policy idea (required SWIPs for IPv6) is not
enforceable by ARIN. In a world where you generally do not go back to the
RIR for additional IPv6 prefixes, ARIN has no enforcement tools in the
policy -- and the one's they could have that I can envisage, I don't
support.
David
_______________________________________________
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.
