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

Correction…. fingers got ahead of brain… I meant to say 47. Owen > On Jun 28, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > Based on William’s logic below, I would advocate for 49. > > Owen > >> On Jun 19, 2017, at 8:05 PM, William Herrin >

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

t; > Thanks, > > Kevin Blumberg > > -Original Message- > From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of David R > Huberman > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 1:37 PM > To: arin-ppml@arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?) &

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

Message- From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of David R Huberman Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 1:37 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?) Hello, Albert wrote: > Based on comments so far, most agree that a /48 should be SWIP

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

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:37 PM, David R Huberman wrote: > Based on comments so far, most agree that a /48 should be SWIP'ed since it >> is routable on the internet, and since so far the majority seems to think >> that /56 is small enough to not require SWIP, this leaves 7

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

Hello, Albert wrote: Based on comments so far, most agree that a /48 should be SWIP'ed since it is routable on the internet, and since so far the majority seems to think that /56 is small enough to not require SWIP, this leaves 7 choices of /49 to /55 to set the limit for SWIP in the Draft.

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

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:25 PM, John Curran wrote: > On 15 Jun 2017, at 5:16 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > I'm of the opinion that if nobody minds, it doesn't matter. Thus I'd like > to see complaint-triggered review of SWIP compliance with some kind of >

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

I have been using v6 since 2007, and everything that was ever stated in the RFCs and in practice always recommended that assignments align on a nibble boundary. Having had many v4 assignments less than /24, I know of the CNAME tricks used. I never had a non nibble aligned v6 assignment, as I

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

On 15 Jun 2017, at 5:16 PM, William Herrin > wrote: On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 8:23 AM, John Curran > wrote: If the community feels that ARIN should enforce these provisions on an on-going basis, then we will make

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

I do not like the idea of ARIN deciding when to enforce a penalty unless this is based on total allocations thus hurting the big boys and not the little guys. *-Chris* On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:16 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 8:23 AM, John Curran

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

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 8:23 AM, John Curran wrote: > If the community feels that ARIN should enforce these > provisions on an on-going basis, then we will make that happen, including > revocation and reissuance of number resources if such is specified. Hi John, I'm of the

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

> On May 25, 2017, at 21:02 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > 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

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

In message <0a860fd3-1673-0be0-d0dd-c1228cfce...@linuxmagic.com>, Michael Peddemors wrote: >Allow the community at large to 'register' complaints, but instead of >having it sent to what for all intents and purposes can seem like a an >opaque resolution process, have

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

In message <1194b151-cb40-2455-1963-58101dbd4...@linuxmagic.com>, Michael Peddemors wrote: >... >There is a solution to that, SWIP to the ISP 'rwhois' server(s) which >have the ability to provide 'rwhois' date down to the /32. >... >While the rules make it clear, that

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

In message <1f134479-998d-30d1-2b59-5ec7eb887...@linuxmagic.com>, Michael Peddemors wrote: >Of course, we are supposed to 'report it to hostmaster', but after many >such reports, and seeing no effect, it makes it hard to bother with >reporting it.. Yes.

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

Cathy, While this is a nice step, and indicates a move forward towards this.. (Wish I just had more time to contribute..) It would be nice that somehow we find a way to 'assist' ARIN, in a public manner, and have it adopted in policy in some form. We have had several ppl who 'see' on a

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

On 17-05-26 06:47 PM, John Curran wrote: Indeed. As folks are probably aware, ARIN is quite willing to enforce SWIP requirements in whatever manner the community deems appropriate, we simply ask for clear direction in the form of community-developed policy. Thanks! /John John Curran President

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

On 17-05-26 05:11 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: Therefore, while we discuss how many access providers are ignoring the SWIP rules, do remember that the majority of ISP customers for IPv4 internet access are NOT subject to the SWIP rules, since they have 1 or less dedicated IP addresses.

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

In message

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

On 17-05-26 04:10 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: The only real "Internet Police" stick is the records needed for additional assignments must be there before you can get more. If in fact more is never needed because of the size of the initial allocation, there is zero incentive to SWIP the

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

Last time I brought up this topic, I was informed that until the Board gets the mandate to work on enforcement, very little will be done on this. However, it wasn't clear on how that can be brought about. Of course, we are supposed to 'report it to hostmaster', but after many such reports,

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

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > In message

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

Peter The draft is still on the AC's docket and the shepherds are working on it. I think it should be part of this discussion so I mentioned it so that folks could take a look. Thanks! -Cathy {Ô,Ô} (( )) ◊ ◊ On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Peter Thimmesch

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

In message <3aa858a9-f0e8-440a-99ca-0140c3ab3...@arin.net>, John Curran wrote: >(I am in no manner advocating for such a policy change, simply making clear >that the ongoing enforcement concerns are a matter of policy clarity rather >than any imagined lack of ability to

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

On 27 May 2017, at 3:53 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > In message <37601b52-b8fb-4661-89ab-21052cf28...@arin.net>, > John Curran wrote: > >> As folks are probably aware, ARIN is quite willing to enforce SWIP >> requirements in whatever manner the

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

In message <37601b52-b8fb-4661-89ab-21052cf28...@arin.net>, John Curran wrote: >As folks are probably aware, ARIN is quite willing to enforce SWIP >requirements in whatever manner the community deems appropriate, >we simply ask for clear direction in the form of

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] 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 (?)

-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

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] 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] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

In message <8f79ce56-9a9a-18a8-94df-d29c21563...@rollernet.us>, Seth Mattinen wrote: >On 5/25/17 11:38, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: >> If true, this comes as a big shock and surprise to me, and I'd appreciate >> someone giving me the exact citation for this rule, so that I

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

On 5/25/17 11:38, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: If true, this comes as a big shock and surprise to me, and I'd appreciate someone giving me the exact citation for this rule, so that I can properly cite it to others. NRPM section 4.2.3.7 ~Seth ___ PPML

[arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

Greetings all, My apologies for barging in to the middle of a serious dicsussion about an actual draft ARIN proposal, just to ask a naive question, but I really did want to get some help understanding this. And as long as it is being discussed anyway... I only watch the traffic on this mailing