I suggest rather than reinvent the wheel, we instead consider adopting the
current IPv6 language on this subject, as based on past discussion, most
of the issues being identified have been already addressed.
These issues include the reduction of the number of networks required to
be registered, the issue of many of the named contacts having no knowledge
about dealing with abuse complaints, therefore making it best by default
to allow abuse contacts to point to the upstream ISP. If also contains a
requirement for a network to be registered in SWIP if the downstream
recipient requests it, because that network desires to receive directly
any abuse reports, and would be assumed to have staff to deal with it.
This is that IPv6 language I propose, modified with IPv4 network sizes.
This language comes from 6.5.5.1 to 6.5.5.4 of the NRPM:
4.2.3.7.1. Reassignment information
Each static IPv4 reassignment or reallocation containing a /23 or more
addresses, or subdelegation of any size that will be individually
announced, shall be registered in the WHOIS directory via SWIP or a
distributed service which meets the standards set forth in section 3.2.
Reassignment and reallocation registrations shall include each client's
organizational information, except where specifically exempted by this
policy.
4.2.3.7.3.2. Residential Customer Privacy
To maintain the privacy of their residential customers, an organization
with downstream residential customers may substitute that organization's
name for the customer's name, e.g. 'Private Customer - XYZ Network', and
the customer's street address may read 'Private Residence'. Each private
downstream residential reassignment must have accurate upstream Abuse and
Technical POCs visible on the WHOIS or Distributed Information Service
record for that block.
4.2.3.7.4. Registration Requested by Recipient
If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of /29 or more
addresses requests publishing of that assignment in ARIN's registration
database, the ISP shall register that assignment as described in section
4.2.3.7.1.
I selected the sizes based on the following, but of course these values
are subject to discussion and change.
/23 was chosen because it is the next size above the minimum size that is
able to be separately routed. /47 was the value chosen at the IPv6 level.
/29 would be the current value of the current policy. I just picked one,
but discussion will reveal what value would be best.
/29 was chosen for the request registration value, as this is the current
value. To be strictly the same as the current IPv6 policy, /32 would need
to be the value, but it seems that letting everyone register their /32
might be considered a bigger work generator than eliminating the SWIP for
these customers. We may want them to have a bigger network before
allowing them to force registration.
4.2.3.7.3.2 was changed to remove the network size, simply making it such
that IF SWIP registration is required, the privacy data may be used
instead if residential. The same was done with the IPv6 policy, which
used to contain the phrase "/64 or more".
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
