Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements

On Fri, 26 May 2017, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: In message , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: Only the largest IPv4 customers are subject to SWIP, not the majority of the total customer base. Just when I though that I was beginning to

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Hello, I'd like to register another vote in support of relaxing IPv6 SWIP requirements in 6.5.5.1 to /60, but eliminating the 4.2.3.7.1 IPv4 changes from this proposal. Regards, Ken Mix -Original Message- From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of ARIN Sent:

Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

In message , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: >Only the largest IPv4 customers are subject to SWIP, not the majority of >the total customer base. Just when I though that I was beginning to understand, now I am *really* confused. You say

Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

On May 26, 2017, at 9:35 PM, "hostmas...@uneedus.com" wrote: > ... > 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

Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

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

Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

Peter, I agree that this policy should be about the sizing of SWIP assignments in IPv6 only. I would prefer that any issue related to enforcement be left out of the policy (I don't see it in the current draft). The benefit of having an appropriate size, is that it shows the community what

Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

Albert, First, I wanted to say that both as a member of the community (as a network operator) and as an AC member, I was exceedingly happy when you proposed this draft policy. I don't agree with everything you have written, but I agree with a lot of it, and I think the draft policy language

Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

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

Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

So, let me see if I understand this... ARIN doesn't, can't, and most probably won't either enforce the existing (IPv4) SWIP rules, nor, for that matter, any new SWIP rules that may be drafted and/or promulgated with respect to IPv6. Is that about the size of it? If so, then color me perplexed.

Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

Hello Cathy, Yes, the was some rather heated discussion at the ARIN meeting in New Orleans about the proposed wording in 3.6.7 Non-Responsive Point of Contact Records. I believe, please correct me if you think otherwise, that the consensus of opinions that spoke at the meeting were strongly

Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

In message

Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

When either these new SWIP rules, for IPv6, or the current SWIP rules, for IPv4 are violated... as they appear to be, with great frequency, from where I am sitting... then who does one call? The Internet Police? The only real "Police" is when ARIN uses the SWIP data to justify another

Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

Scott, On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette < > r...@tristatelogic.com> wrote: > >> >> In message <8a3a301d-39b5-4f81-8e2c-90e23b819...@panix.com>, >> David Huberman wrote: >> >>

Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > In message <8a3a301d-39b5-4f81-8e2c-90e23b819...@panix.com>, > David Huberman wrote: > > >In short, there is an argument that the SWIP rules are no-op now. So to > answer > >your question

Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

In message <8a3a301d-39b5-4f81-8e2c-90e23b819...@panix.com>, David Huberman wrote: >In short, there is an argument that the SWIP rules are no-op now. So to answer >your question directly; what do you do? Nothing. Those days are long gone >and ARIN has other focuses now. So,

Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

rfg, The mandatory SWIP requirements are an anachronism from a time where they were moderately enforceable. For many many years, a traditional, vanilla-flavored ISP would get a block from ARIN, allocate a lot of it to dynamic pools. SWIP out the static /29 and larger assignments to customers,

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

pardon top-post; on mobile the spec doesn't match operational reality, hence https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6/ cheers, Joe On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:22:37AM -0400, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > RFC 4291, section 2.5.4 provide that the interface ID is /64

Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

This proposal was intended to try to bring the v4 and v6 world together on the same policy. Because of the nibble boundary rule and rDNS, on the v6 side, there are really only 5 choices in network size: /48, /52, /56, /60 and /64 without having to do non-standard CNAME tricks used when

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

RFC 4291, section 2.5.4 provide that the interface ID is /64 for all global unicast addresses, which is the reason that all v6 lan networks are set to /64, and this should include p2p links Network World at the time had quite a discussion about this and RFC 6164. They point out that we have