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

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 network works and using length as a really poor proxy. I could live with a fourth line: Any end network emitting SMTP system SHOULD provide SWIP. I just

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

Actually, let me revise that; I'm willing to recognize at least the possibility there is a legitimate community interest in having records for assignments that are shorter than /40 for IPv6 and /24 for IPv4. Why, those numbers? They are the sizes at the bottom of ARIN's fee schedule, if anything

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

Honestly, I could live with it just those three lines. However, I'm willing to recognize at least the possibility there is a legitimate community interest in having records for assignments that are shorter than /48. As for IPv4, I'd also be just fine with those three lines. Again, recognizing

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

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:48 PM, wrote: > In the case of that 69.0.0.0 block we were talking about, it may not be on > the other side of the earth, but certainly in different states. That block > had the serving site as CT, the parent record as TX, and a note in that >

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

While I agree with the general direction David is heading, his text is still overly complex to deal with the goal. This whole thread only requires 3 lines: Reallocations MUST provide SWIP. Requests by the assignee MUST provide SWIP. Anything appearing independently in the global routing

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

In the case of that 69.0.0.0 block we were talking about, it may not be on the other side of the earth, but certainly in different states. That block had the serving site as CT, the parent record as TX, and a note in that record to send legal process to FL. Quite a trip. What is the purpose

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

I agree with that! Paul On 7/24/2017 2:00 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: The current proposal language says: /47 or shorter are SWIP’d in all cases. /48 or longer are SWIP’d if they are independently announced. Owen On Jul 24, 2017, at 11:53 , Paul McNary

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

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:46 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jul 24, 2017, at 04:03 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > /47 or more addresses is intended to be /47, /46 . /1 and not the > reverse. The current language is "/64 or more", and I read that same > phrase as /64, /63

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

Then that totally negates the reasoning for geolocation. The administrative address could be on the other side of the earth. Paul On 7/24/2017 1:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Jul 20, 2017, at 14:28 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: My transit bus example is another example of SWIP difficulty.

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

The current proposal language says: /47 or shorter are SWIP’d in all cases. /48 or longer are SWIP’d if they are independently announced. Owen > On Jul 24, 2017, at 11:53 , Paul McNary wrote: > > What does the new language say? > I then am totally confused

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

https://www.arin.net/resources/request/reassignments.html On 7/24/2017 1:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Jul 20, 2017, at 13:51 , Paul McNary > wrote: Owen The reassignment policy page says IPv6 has to be done vi API. Is that something else

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

> On Jul 21, 2017, at 00:09 , the...@uneedus.com wrote: > > As for discussion of SWIP for /48's, some have suggested since these are the > recommended minimum assignment for an end site, /48 should not trigger SWIP > unless independently routed. Others believe all /48's be SWIP'ed. Thus the

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

What does the new language say? I then am totally confused as I am with the rest of the NPRM! So many contradictions using Missouri English. Paul On 7/24/2017 1:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: That’s not what the new language actually says. Owen On Jul 20, 2017, at 13:26 , Paul McNary

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

> On Jul 24, 2017, at 04:03 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > /47 or more addresses is intended to be /47, /46 . /1 and not the > reverse. The current language is "/64 or more", and I read that same phrase > as /64, /63 . /1. For comparison, the current IPv4 language is "/29 or >

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

> On Jul 20, 2017, at 14:28 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > 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. Not at all. A bus would be SWIPd to the bus yard or administrative offices of

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

Dynamic assignments are not required to be registered… STATIC assignments are required to be registered, so that argument doesn’t work. Owen > On Jul 20, 2017, at 13:54 , Chris James wrote: > > @Paul - The API key is to email it. > > @Owen - Very difficult when you have

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

That’s not what the new language actually says. Owen > On Jul 20, 2017, at 13:26 , Paul McNary wrote: > > 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”

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

As for discussion of SWIP for /48's, some have suggested since these are the recommended minimum assignment for an end site, /48 should not trigger SWIP unless independently routed. Others believe all /48's be SWIP'ed. Thus the two main ideas for this proposal currently are: 1) SWIP all

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

"As far as John's comment, this proposal began with a suggestion that changed the v4 requirement as well, making both "more than 16" networks or IPv4 addresses. Since changing the v4 language from 8 addresses to more than 16 addresses was clearly not desired by the community, the v4 language was