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

Gentlemen, let me introduce practical elements into this "difficult and onerous" attitude, but ethical, on the tech and abuse contact requests. Let's see in practice how it works when organizations accept and disclose absolutely false data, and when questioned, they simply lie or ignore it. We

[arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net

Total of 80 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 21 00:53:28 EDT 2017 Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ 15.00% | 12 | 17.01% | 245901 | pmcn...@cameron.net 15.00% | 12 | 13.63% | 197010 |

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

Well I think in the bus example you would swip to the overall authority. But seriously this conversation has gone in so many different directions do any of us remember the original point? My vote as it applies to v6: Non-residential allocations of greater than or equal to a /48. If you as an ISP

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

My transit bus example is another example of SWIP difficulty. Very hard to provide a street address to SWIP a bus when it is mobile 16 hours a day. Current policy says SWIP every /64 or more, which is every network in v6. I did a check here, and in v4, only 1% of customers have more than 8

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

Owen The reassignment policy page says IPv6 has to be done vi API. Is that something else that is incorrect on the web site? Paul On 7/20/2017 3:16 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: How can it be overly difficult to fill out an email template with your customers’ Name, Address, Phone Number? Really?

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

Hey David, On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 01:54:08PM -0400, David R Huberman wrote: > Hello Joe, > > Thanks for the reply. A reminder that I'm *asking* a genuine question. Sure, and I was supplying my genuine response. My personal hat is still firmly on my head, fwiw. > Now, I wrote: > > >> Whois

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

Yes /48 is the SWIP boundary. /48 is SWIP'ed. /49 is not. Paul On 7/20/2017 3:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: My recommendation was “shorter than /48” which would essentially mean the same thing. Owen On Jul 17, 2017, at 15:46 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: The language of "b)" actually

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

Owen I agree 100% with your statement below! Longer than a /48. That would eliminate any concerns I have. /48's could be assigned to each POP giving basic location information for any downstream. That is similar to BCP of a /24 for IPv4. If a downstream business request SWIP that we can

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

How can it be overly difficult to fill out an email template with your customers’ Name, Address, Phone Number? Really? Owen > On Jul 19, 2017, at 23:48 , Pallieter Koopmans > wrote: > > Hello, > > ARIN could quantify and require rules for when to SWIP, but in the >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-7: Retire Obsolete Section 4 From the NRPM

You are correct, I was meaning to refer to Section 8. Thanks for pointing out the error :) -C > On Jul 20, 2017, at 1:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> >> On Jul 17, 2017, at 12:32 , Chris Woodfield > > wrote: >> >> Hello, >>

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

My recommendation was “shorter than /48” which would essentially mean the same thing. Owen > On Jul 17, 2017, at 15:46 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > The language of "b)" actually makes more sense with a /47: > > Each static IPv6 assignment containing a /47 or more addresses, or >

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

This makes the best case I can imagine for why setting the boundary at /56 is a bad idea and we should not be considering anything longer than /48. Owen > On Jul 17, 2017, at 15:40 , Paul McNary wrote: > > Leif > If I understand your question: > > Originally /48 to

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-7: Retire Obsolete Section 4 From the NRPM

> On Jul 17, 2017, at 12:32 , Chris Woodfield wrote: > > Hello, > > Reviving the thread on Draft Policy ARIN-2017-7. So far, the community > response to the proposal in its current state appears to be universally > negative. > > Having read the comments on this

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

+1… Well said, Joe. Owen > On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:34 , Joe Provo wrote: > > > > 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

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

I can accept any of the (now 3) proposals contained in this email. Owen > On Jul 17, 2017, at 09:13 , Jason Schiller 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

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

Hello, ARIN could quantify and require rules for when to SWIP, but in the end, there are going to be exceptions needed if the rules are to be strictly followed. Many will not separately SWIP a separately routed sub-block if it is too difficult or pointless to gather and share that data back