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

I called it specious when it was first argued and I continue to call it specious. Owen > On Jul 25, 2017, at 15:12, Paul McNary wrote: > > Owen > Several weeks ago geolocation was one of the arguments for having accurate > whois in this thread. > This is no longer being argued? > Paul > >>

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

> On Jul 25, 2017, at 15:46, Paul McNary wrote: > > Let me change "geolocation" to "address tracking". > For instance, Netflix blocks a certain region and whois is showing customer > in that region, whereas the customer is actually in a non-blocked region. > If I had my own IPv4 /24 or above I

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

Let me change "geolocation" to "address tracking". For instance, Netflix blocks a certain region and whois is showing customer in that region, whereas the customer is actually in a non-blocked region. If I had my own IPv4 /24 or above I don't have any issue making this entry correct to ARIN. But

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

If I, as an End User network, want to inform geolocation providers of where I'm using each netblock, having them assigned to me in the whois DB with an appropriate address is one of the best ways to do that. But if I'm running a geolocation service, I can't rely on whois as the sole source of data

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

Owen Several weeks ago geolocation was one of the arguments for having accurate whois in this thread. This is no longer being argued? Paul On 7/25/2017 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Huh? WHOIS is not a geolocation service and anyone who thinks it is should reduce their use of recreational phar

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

"NOTE: IPv6 simple reassigns are only available in the RESTful web service ." On 7/25/2017 4:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: I think you’re misinterpreting something on that page. I might be blind, but I don’t read anything on that page to say

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

> On Jul 25, 2017, at 10:34 , Michael Peddemors wrote: > > On 17-07-24 05:06 PM, Tony Hain wrote: >> I still don’t see any value in specifying length. What you are looking for >> is contact info for someone with a clue about how a given network works and >> using length as a really poor proxy.

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

Huh? WHOIS is not a geolocation service and anyone who thinks it is should reduce their use of recreational pharmaceuticals. Owen > On Jul 24, 2017, at 12:03 , Paul McNary wrote: > > Then that totally negates the reasoning for geolocation. > The administrative address could be on the other si

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

I think you’re misinterpreting something on that page. I might be blind, but I don’t read anything on that page to say that IPv6 reassignments must be done by RESTful API. I know that in practice you can do IPv6 reassignments via RWHOIS and I believe templates are also supported as well as ARIN

[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - July 2017

In accordance with the Policy Development Process (PDP), the Advisory Council (AC) met on 20 July 2017. The AC is continuing to work on: * ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks * ARIN-2017-3: Update to NPRM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation * ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

On 17-07-24 05:06 PM, Tony Hain wrote: I still don’t see any value in specifying length. What you are looking for is contact info for someone with a clue about how a given network works and using length as a really poor proxy. I could live with a fourth line: Any end network emitting SMTP sys