On Sat, 27 May 2017, Peter Thimmesch wrote:
Albert,
I concur 100% with your goal here and believe that there is a path to
creating an equitable policy. Therefore I support, and ask others
responding to this thread, with the intent of your policy proposal.
The sole question, outside of "size" of the v6 cut-off, is whether there
should be a mechanism to "punish" those that do not follow the policy.
Can we work first to agree on the size cut-off and then address what, if
any, enforcement tools can be agreed upon?
The draft proposed "more than a /60", is this acceptable to the
community? I support revising the current policy to this size.
Regards,
Peter Thimmesch
My proposal has nothing whatsover to do with enforcement of the SWIP
requirements. My proposal is only about what point, such as "more than a
/60" should the policy requiring assignment registration be set for v6.
I have learned enough to suggest that the portion of my proposal to raise
the v4 standard above /29 in the name of equality appears to not have
support. Thus, I am no longer advocating this change at all.
As to where the v6 line should be drawn, many commenters as well as myself
agree that /64 is too low, as even small networks should be able to subnet
itself for security and isolation reasons. If there is anyone here who
thinks that a /64 is enough and should be the line, lets hear the reasons.
My proposal is currently "More than a /60" which gives 16 subnets. For
most uses today, this is plenty, but others have suggested it be /56 or
even one comment of /48. Since we should remain on a nibble boundary, the
choices are /48, /52, /56, /60 or /64. The biggest network currently not
requiring assignment registration under current policy is a /65, a non-
standard network size.
I would like to stay focused on what size network on a nibble boundary
should the maximum be before triggering the assignment registration
policy. Other than /64, I would be happy with any of the other
boundaries listed above.
Enforcement I think should be left to another proposal, and do not think
that I am the one that will be drafting such a proposal, and do not think
the enforcement issues are helpful in trying to decide where the boundary
should be drawn in this policy proposal. Please reserve these discussions
for a future "enforcement" policy proposal, when we can discuss the need
for SWIP, and the privacy implications for small networks. Currently 100%
SWIP is required for ALL v6 assignments of /64 or larger. The residential
customer is exempt from disclosure of street address and name, BUT a zip
code/postal code is disclosed. Will we start seeing geolocation providers
using this data?
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
