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 be a mechanism to "punish" those that do not follow the policy. Can we work first to agree on the size cut-off and then address what, if any, enforcement tools can be agreed upon? The draft proposed "more than a /60", is this acceptable to the community? I support revising the current policy to this size. Regards, Peter Thimmesch On May 26, 2017, at 20:11, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. I'm not at all sure that I grasp the >> reason(s) why people on this list are spending/investing time and energy >> discussing and debating some new draft rule for IPv6 that also and likewise >> won't ever actually be enforced. >> >> Am I missing something? > > I am the proposer of the current item regarding IPv6 Assignment Registration. > > I wrote this proposal with all seriousness, and do not see it as head of a > pin dancing. When the rules for v4 likely affect less than 5-10% of the > total customer base at an ISP, but adding IPv6 elevates it to 100%, this is > wrong, and this does deserve a serious shot at repair. I would like to see > the percentages of v6 customers subject to this rule to be roughly the same > as the current number of v4 customers subject to the rule. > > In the IPv4 world, a majority of the total number of access circuits for > Internet access only provide 1 global IP address. In the case of mobile > networks, you do not even get that, but rather an RFC1918 address behind some > sort of NAT. The current rule of /29 or more means that all these IPv4 > customers are not, and never have been subject to SWIP rules. Generally only > those doing hosting of some sort, or larger businesses actually request an > amount of addresses that require SWIP. > > 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. > > Only the largest IPv4 customers are subject to SWIP, not the majority of the > total customer base. > > When the standard was lowered to the /29 point, somehow the proposal at that > time also decided to lower the v6 point from /48 to /64. Of course, /64 > means EVERY customer, even the very smallest must be subject to SWIP under > the rules. As noted we have gone a few years with only a few people > requesting v6 assignments, and the SWIP requirement has been ignored to a > large degree much to the same degree that v6 itself has been ignored. > > The current rule for IPv6 is 100% is subject to SWIP. Whereas maybe 10% or > less of your customer base under v4 was subject to SWIP, the current > requirement is 100% for v6. > > How can you expect such a rule to be followed, and is it reasonable to > subject the majority of the access customers to this rule for v6, when it has > NEVER been the rule in v4? I have never seen anyone propose SWIP at the /32 > level. The current v6 standard of 100% SWIP is UNREASONABLE. This is why I > am proposing a change in the standard. > > Reasonable rules are more likely to be complied with, and whatever the rule > is, I agree that the rules should not be ignored, and also agree that in > fact, it is widely ignored. If it were made more reasonable, I have hope > that it might also be followed more. > > If the Registration rule was made closer to the current v4 rule, such that > does not catch most access provider customers, there will be fewer addresses > to SWIP, and I believe it will be more likely than the current rule to be > followed, as the number of assignments requiring registration will be vastly > decreased from the current standard of 100% of v6. > > While I doubt that this registration requirement is the "cause" of not > providing IPv6 connections, it certainly adds to the excuses not to adopt. > We know that lots of excuses have been used, and we should do anything to cut > back on the excuses. > > In answer to the question as to the purpose of this proposal, it is to make > the rules for SWIP more equal between IPv4 and IPv6. Currently, IPv4 only > requires SWIP for a /29 or more, leaving the majority of access circuits > without any SWIP requirement whatsoever. This is NOT currently true for > IPv6, which the policy manual requires registration for a /64 or more of > space, which is basically 100%. > > Albert Erdmann > Network Administrator > Paradise On Line Inc. > _______________________________________________ > 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: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ 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: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
