I support it as well. If it's a /29 or larger, I would want to be contacted
as the service provider if there is abuse on my IP range. The customer will
most likely not have anyone that can take meaningful action. I'm sure there
are exceptions to this.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:07 PM Christopher E.
I learned a lot about the feelings of the community regarding the
requirement to SWIP 8 IPs or more when I proposed 2017-5. My intent was
originally to change the policy for IPv6 SWIP registration from EVERY
network to those who had more than 16 networks, or more than a /60. As
part of that,
I agree with Christopher and Larry that in most cases it's going to be
pointless, but if it's pointless, the better question becomes: why SWIP it in
the first place?
I don't disagree with either of your specific points, but this is something
I've pondered for a very long time: the point of del
I support this proposal.
Almost all end users with /29 or larger in our network would not understand
what you were contacting them about.We get all of the complaints and will
follow up with the end user to get it resolved. I kind of feel that is what
they are paying use to do.
Chri
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:47:34 +
Adam Thompson wrote:
I would phrase it in far less colourful language, and my motivations are almost entirely opposite, but with the same end result:
I don’t like this proposal.
If I have a /29 or larger, and it’s sending spam or doing anything else anti-socia
I would phrase it in far less colourful language, and my motivations are almost
entirely opposite, but with the same end result: I don’t like this proposal.
If I have a /29 or larger, and it’s sending spam or doing anything else
anti-social, I want to know about it. Relaxing the reassignment req
