On 17-07-17 10:54 AM, David R Huberman wrote:
AT&T Internet Services SBCIS-SIS80-1005 (NET-69-0-0-0-1) 69.0.0.0 -
69.0.127.255
THE MEDICINE SHOPPE SBC069000000000030204 (NET-69-0-0-0-2) 69.0.0.0 -
69.0.0.7
When you lookup the specific /29, you get:
CustName: THE MEDICINE SHOPPE
Address: 310 ORANGE ST
City: NEW HAVEN
StateProv: CT
PostalCode: 06510
Country: US
It depends, who do you want to be authorative for contact information on
issues related to that network.
If ATT wants to deal with every issue related to every IP address in
that /17, no need to do SWIP, however if you want the Medicine Shoppe to
be be able to authoratively speak for the usage of that /29, you better
give them SWIP/rwhois.
It also is a 'boundary' condition, eg can speak to the operations of the
/29, but should not have to worry about activity from surrounding blocks..
Now, in terms of an ISP providing IP allocations to customers, it may
not have to be SWIP'ed on the IP boundary, as for instance a /21 may ALL
be dynamic IP Addresses for customers, which can be SWIP'ed as such, and
the holder of the SWIP (poc) will be responsible for the combined
behavior of the pool.
However, if a statically assigned IP to a business customer, it might
want to be SWIP'ed so that the specific customer can set a 'boundary' on
behavior, eg my IP is not like the rest around me, and I will be
responsible for my IP's activity.
Aside from the concept's of SWIP helping 'justify' usage for resources,
(and there is a slippery slope, if you don't care about justification
for IPv6 but you do for IPv4 in terms of legal contests), the idea of
setting a control boundary via SWIP and/or rwhois is a very important
concept.
As such, I would suggest making this concept a basis for when SWIP
'might' be used, but not enforced.. eg. SWIP should not be needed at any
lower level than the boundary of responsibility.
An ISP could set that boundary for one household, or one business, IF
that is the boundary of responsibility, and the household or business
'chooses' to be the responsible party for that boundary, and in that
case they should expect that their POC information be publicized.
It would be better if the concept of 'boundaries' be enshrined, instead
of the actual number of IP (v6 or otherwise) or segments.. In some cases
in the future it 'could' be a boundary be specified as low as a /56, but
in reality, the segment would be different depending on the use case.
If you want to enshrine 'use cases' into the proposal, then you might
come to agreement for a specific use case, when/how to SWIP it.
Also, remember, 'rwhois' is available at a lower granularity than SWIP
might require as well..
--
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.
_______________________________________________
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.
