+1… Well said, Joe. Owen
> On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:34 , Joe Provo <p...@rsuc.gweep.net> wrote: > > <HAT TYPE="personal", STATE="ON"> > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 01:08:49PM -0400, David Huberman wrote: >> In addition to these options/questions, I feel like we glossed >> over the question posed by Marty Hannigan: what is the value of >> REQUIRING SWIP anymore? As a community member (not as an AC member) >> I have trouble supporting any of these as I'm not sure I support >> SWIP being anything other than voluntary. Whois reassignments are >> not the proper place for the information LE wants, in my opinion, >> and has almost no value to NOCs. > > 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? > >> And ARIN doesn't need it anymore >> for qualification purposes for a scarce resource. So what's he >> point of all this? Genuine question; no tone implied. > > As a community, we (used to?) value accountability and transparency. > Having a direct contact associated with a resource has IME always > worked better than trying to contact a porvider with whom I have no > business relationship. > > [snip] >>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Jason Schiller <jschil...@google.com> 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? > > Since my concern is associated with the resource usage, and we > in ARIN-land historically wash our hands of connectivity/reachability, > as much as the second is appealing the former is more relevant and > workable. I personally dislike the blanket exception embedded within > it, but know there's not going to be any upside to fighting that one > so would rather take what I can get. > >>> 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 > > I like the addition. > > Cheers! > > Joe > > </HAT> > > -- > Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. > Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling > _______________________________________________ > 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.