On 17 Jul 2017, at 2:25 PM, Tony Hain
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
John,
I think we are in violent agreement here, other than the ARIN membership is the
wrong venue (not broad enough to encompass the appropriate community) for the
base statement that SWIP data must exist for a routing entry. If the
appropriately broad community established that BCP; a policy enforceable by
ARIN staff would be “complies with community established BCP’s related to
routing”.
The only problem I have with the general braindead conservation mindset that
says a /48 is non-consumer, and must be SWIPed while longer values would be
only consumer and therefore exempt. As far as it goes, if a consumer convinced
the ISP they had a technical need for a /36, that should be exempt based on
consumer protection. Length has nothing to do with it. Identifiable routing
slot contact info is the “need” here, so anything that is not broken out
doesn’t “need” SWIP data. That said, this whole paragraph, and most of the
current discussion belongs in another venue.
Tony -
This is an open forum – i.e. one does not have to be an ARIN
Member to participate in the discussion. To that end, if there
is number resource policy to be developed by the community
which is applicable to the ARIN registry, then such policy is
developed on the ARIN Public Policy mailing list and associated
(also open w/o charge to all) ARIN Public policy meetings.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
_______________________________________________
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.
