Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Dec 11 08:31:50 UTC 2012


On Dec 10, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:

> 
> In message <272782D1-8DEA-4718-9429-8B0505DD30BD at delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
> s:
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> =20
>>> In message <50C65C84.6080203 at dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
>>>> On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
>>>>> I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as IPv4 /29 :=
>> : I
>>>> Pv6 /64
>>>> =20
>>>> Quite the opposite in fact. In IPv6 a /64 is roughly equivalent to a /32
>>>> in IPv4. As in, it's the smallest possible assignment that will allow an
>>>> end-user host to function under normal circumstances.
>>>> =20
>>>> SWIP or rwhois for a /64 seems excessive to me, FWIW.
>>>> =20
>>>> Doug
>>> =20
>>> Even SWIP for a /48 for a residential assignment is excessive.
>>> SWIP for a /48 for a commercial assignment is reasonable
>>> =20
>> 
>> I disagree. SWIP for a /48 with the appropriate notations under residential c
>> =
>> ustomer privacy policy provides a good balance between the need for public a=
>> ccountability of resource utilization and privacy concerns for residential c=
>> ustomer assignments.
>> 
>> Owen
> 
> You don't SWIP each residential customer with IPv4.  You often SWIP blocks
> of residential customers down to the pop level.
> You often SWIP each commercial customer with IPv4.
> 

You SWIP each one that gets a /29 or larger.

> To require a SWIP entry for each residential customer is bureaucracy
> gone mad.  Additionally there is no technical need for this.  It
> isn't needed for address accountability.  Residential customers
> have historically been treated in bulk.
> 

It really isn't. We can agree to disagree, as we usually do. It's
quite easily automated and it really is the equivalent to current IPv4
policy. The difference being only that in IPv6, we expect more customers
to get networks instead of host addresses.


Owen




More information about the NANOG mailing list