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
subdividing the rDNS for more than one customer in a /24 of v4.
V6 Stated another way: /64 is one network, /60 is 16 networks, and /56 is
256 networks. Since most sane networks want to separate their IOT, Guest
and Subscriber devices network from one another, this means that /60 is as
small as is reasonable to go, and still maintain parity with the /32 of v4
space used by residential and small business clients and the current and
future technology in the v4 world. Some comments clearly state that
operators should not be giving out anything less than a /60, which seems
to state v6 /60 is the same as v4 /32.
The focus of the proposal to me is v6 parity or better. Since current
policy seems to have no issue with a blanket policy of a /48 for every
site, there should be no issue with a /56 or /60 as far as wastefulness of
address space, a more conserving choice.
Since 16 seemed like a magic number, I thought the perfect line would be
more than 16 networks for v6 or 16 addresses for v4 without knowing the
community wants to keep 8 address or more assignment registration for v4.
I now realize that there is no case to change this just to acheve absolute
parity, and I see nothing wrong with giving v6 a slight advantage.
We do need to do something about the current IPv6 policy that requires ALL
IPv6 assignments be registered, even those customers with the smallest
possible size network of /64.
I suggest "More than a /56" is best for 6.5.5.1, and we remove the v4
proposal 4.2.3.7.1, since there appears to be strong agreement to leave
the current level of assignment registration for v4. While argument can
be made that /60 is enough, the next step up is reasonable at more than
/56.
What I would like to hear from the community is their input as to where to
draw the line for 6.5.5.1. While I proposed both /60 and /64 be exempt
from registration, other comments suggest that /56 should as well.
Currently a /64 or more (which is ALL IPv6 networks) must be SWIP'ed.
Our choices is to leave this requirement alone or:
1) Change to More than a /64, which has the disadvantage of prohibiting
any subnetting.
2) Change to More than a /60, which is the current proposal, which will
allow up to 16 subnets for IOT/VLAN/other future uses.
3) Change to More than a /56 which will allow 256 networks, and a bit more
future proofing, but not so much to be unreasonable.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Thu, 25 May 2017, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <8f79ce56-9a9a-18a8-94df-d29c21563...@rollernet.us>,
Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us> 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 can properly
cite it to others.
NRPM section 4.2.3.7
Thank you for the refernece. I've just now perused it, and it is most
enlightening.
May I safely assume that when, on a nearly daily basis, I encounter
unambiguous violations of the above cited ARIN NRPM section, that I
should immediately bring all such violations to the attention of
The Internet Police?
Reading over NRPM 4.2.3.7, I am also left just slightly unclear on a
couple of small but important points that relate directly to situations
that I seem to come upon with great frequency in my daily research.
Specifically, where may I find a formal definition for the term
"Residential Customer"? Given that every legal entity, human or
otherwise, "resides" somewhere, even if only within the 4x4 inch
confines of a rented P.O. box, it would seem arguable that every
legal entity on the planet could, depending on one's definition,
qualify as a "Residential Customer". (And on a related note, I
cannot help by wonder aloud if there is any limit to the size of
allocations made to "Residential Customers". May a "Residential
Customer" be assigned an IPv4 /16?)
Second... and I don't think that I'm the first to ask about this...
may an ARIN member that has received a direct allocation satisfy
the edicts of NRPM 4.2.3.7 by creating SWIPs or Rwhois records which
make reference to non-person legal entities which demonstratably no
longer exist, in a legal sense?
Again, I thank everyone for your indulgence while I try to understand
this very interesting policy (NRPM 4.2.3.7).
Regards,
rfg
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
