Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

“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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

I would be in support of more than a /56. — Brian E Jones CSM, CSPO Network Infrastructure & Services Virginia Tech bjo...@vt.edu On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM Leif Sawyer wrote: > Good day, PPML! > > First, as the primary shepherd for ARIN-2017-5, I want to thank everybody

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Excellent idea! José José R. de la Cruz jrdelac...@acm.org On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Leif Sawyer wrote: > Good day, PPML! > > First, as the primary shepherd for ARIN-2017-5, I want to thank everybody > for the spirited > discussion on this proposal. It's generated a

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Good day, PPML! First, as the primary shepherd for ARIN-2017-5, I want to thank everybody for the spirited discussion on this proposal. It's generated a lot of good feedback for the AC to take under consideration as we develop the text. Based on the community feedback, as well as internal

Re: [arin-ppml] Discussion on elimination of SWIP requirements.

On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 7:27 PM, wrote: > If enforcement of SWIP would result in the elimination of network abuse, I would not speak against it. However, even with valid contacts in SWIP, abuse reports are ignored. > Contacting the ARIN allocation holder also often goes

Re: [arin-ppml] Discussion on elimination of SWIP requirements.

On 5 Jun 2017, at 10:03 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette > wrote: In message >, John Curran > wrote: ...