Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Question for ARIN regarding SWIP

Of course, I can understand why a PO Box is used, if the place where the network is set up does not have a street address assigned, and their mail delivery is therefore required to be sent via a PO Box or otherwise. I work with a WISP in my area which covers some remote places. About 1/2 of

Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Question for ARIN regarding SWIP

The examples are just that. IMHO, as a general rule, the address published in whois should be an address where legal process can be served regarding the network. I know that in some case, the address listed in whois is a P.O. Box. I doubt that anyone has implemented a SWIP-sized network inside

Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Question for ARIN regarding SWIP

> On Jul 26, 2017, at 15:19 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > There has been some discussion regarding this question on the PPML, and since > I received different answers regarding this and nothing official that I can > find in the NRPM, I have decided to reach out to someone from ARIN for

Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Question for ARIN regarding SWIP

Albert wrote: On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:19 PM, wrote: > > > Said Major wireless provider tells me that ARIN requires a street address > for each site in SWIP, and this information must be the service address, > and that each site's address must be unique. > Not to muddy

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

> On Jul 26, 2017, at 08:34 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > Im sure glad that /32's of static IPv4 are not subject to SWIP, and that SWIP > does not require GPS info. > > If it did, we would be in trouble, as our GPS tracking only updates every 300 > seconds or 5 minutes, and we would

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

> On Jul 26, 2017, at 07:20 , Michael Peddemors wrote: > > On 17-07-25 02:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Jul 25, 2017, at 10:34 , Michael Peddemors >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 17-07-24 05:06 PM, Tony Hain wrote: I still don’t see any value in

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

I don’t know if it is spelled out in policy, but it is certainly widespread practice and I know of nothing prohibiting it. Owen > On Jul 26, 2017, at 06:50 , Roberts, Orin wrote: > > Ref: Geolocation and SWIPs > > I have seen SWIPs with GPS coordinates similar to the bus

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

I believe that both the existing and proposed policies handle the CPNI issues sufficiently through the ARIN requirement that providers require similar reassignment terms from their assignees and other recipients. Otherwise, yes, I think we are in agreement about the policy. Owen > On Jul 26,

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

On 7/26/2017 11:34 AM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: Right now, all 500+ busses use a static IPv4 address, that is assigned by the Major wireless provider. They are NOT in a block reserved for us. They are scattered around several blocks of addresses of the provider, some of which they

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

David, Tony, Thank you for bringing up the IPS must SWIP when address user asks. Scott, Thank you for putting the changes in context. I oppose as written. I support with the David/Tony friendly admendment. Why? > It should be required for an ISP to SWIP / Rwhois any reassignment > when the

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

On 7/26/17 08:34, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: Im sure glad that /32's of static IPv4 are not subject to SWIP, and that SWIP does not require GPS info. If it did, we would be in trouble, as our GPS tracking only updates every 300 seconds or 5 minutes, and we would need a T1 of bandwidth just

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

Im sure glad that /32's of static IPv4 are not subject to SWIP, and that SWIP does not require GPS info. If it did, we would be in trouble, as our GPS tracking only updates every 300 seconds or 5 minutes, and we would need a T1 of bandwidth just to keep the SWIP updated, and for what purpose?

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

On 17-07-25 02:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Jul 25, 2017, at 10:34 , Michael Peddemors wrote: On 17-07-24 05:06 PM, Tony Hain wrote: I still don’t see any value in specifying length. What you are looking for is contact info for someone with a clue about how a given

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

Ref: Geolocation and SWIPs I have seen SWIPs with GPS coordinates similar to the bus example; wifi/camera in remote park. “A bus would be SWIPd to the bus yard or administrative offices of the bus company. The SWIP data is not required to be the service address, it is required to be an

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

Hello Owen I think we are really almost in total agreement! :-) I think we use words a little differently, but It think we want a similar result. "Address Tracking" was not on my concerns list except for possible CPNI violations which I see a solution of how to handle this. Take care Paul On

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

I called it specious when it was first argued and I continue to call it specious. Owen > On Jul 25, 2017, at 15:12, Paul McNary wrote: > > Owen > Several weeks ago geolocation was one of the arguments for having accurate > whois in this thread. > This is no longer

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

> On Jul 25, 2017, at 15:46, Paul McNary wrote: > > Let me change "geolocation" to "address tracking". > For instance, Netflix blocks a certain region and whois is showing customer > in that region, whereas the customer is actually in a non-blocked region. > If I had my