<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.