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

2017-07-19 Thread John Curran
On 19 Jul 2017, at 4:36 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > While thinking about it John, there was some discussion over using the main > facility address in a single SWIP for an entire block that contained many > sites. Is this allowed? Albert - Alas, the only “advice” that I can

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

2017-07-19 Thread Michael Peddemors
On 17-07-17 10:54 AM, David R Huberman wrote: AT Internet Services SBCIS-SIS80-1005 (NET-69-0-0-0-1) 69.0.0.0 - 69.0.127.255 THE MEDICINE SHOPPE SBC0690030204 (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:

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

2017-07-19 Thread John Curran
On 19 Jul 2017, at 11:12 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > As I understand it, if the ISP assigned you a /48 and individually routed the > /64s for you, they would only have to create a single SWIP entry for the /48, > and the street address of your central location (or

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

2017-07-19 Thread Scott Leibrand
As I understand it, if the ISP assigned you a /48 and individually routed the /64s for you, they would only have to create a single SWIP entry for the /48, and the street address of your central location (or your administrative HQ, if different) would be perfectly appropriate for that SWIP. I

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

2017-07-19 Thread theone
I would like to give an example of why the current /64 or more rule for IPv6 SWIP vs IPv4 is an issue for a project I am working on: I am working on a project to enable public IPv6 on Public Transit busses. Currently we have a public V4 address assigned by the winner of a State Government

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

2017-07-19 Thread hostmaster
For the record, I would be happy if this policy stopped at changing the 100% SWIP requirement for v6 assignments to allowing /56 and smaller to not have to SWIP. However, if the community agrees, I have no issues with taking additional actions in this draft, up to and including elimination of