On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:24 PM Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jul 17, 2017, at 16:36 , John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Albert - > > > > We’ll research into these questions and report back shortly. > > > > Thanks! > > /John > > > >> On 17 Jul 2017, at 2:53 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> > >> Just a couple of questions regarding the carrots and the sticks for the > ARIN staff: > >> > >> Other than those who came back to change their initial /35 to a /32, > how many ARIN customers have come back for another allocation of IPv6 space > because they used the first one to the extent the rules require, which I > think is 75% of /48 block assignments. > > Not many…. Yet. I know a few years ago, I filed the first such application > (or at least so said RSHD at the time) on behalf of my employer at the time > (HE) which requested (and received) a subsequent /24 to augment their > existing /32 which was, in fact, more than 75% utilized. > > >> And, how many customers have received a first allocation of IPv6? > >> > >> Divide, and I can find out what percentage came back for more. > > The problem with this theory is that IPv6 is just getting started and the > vast majority of ARIN customers that have received an initial IPv6 > allocation or assignment haven’t yet achieved full IPv6 deployment even to > the point of parity with their IPv4 deployment. As such, measurements to > date will be badly skewed to the low side of future reality. > +1 Even heavy users of IPv6 for years such as my organization are just now realizing that we wished we had opted for for a /27 instead of a /32 now. Even though we are mostly dual stacked everywhere we are just now seeing the potential of being able to allocate IPv6 addressing in a more meaningful way, and with all the research taking place with robots, drones, driverless vehicles, bio-engineering, aerospace, etc… etc… we really may have to go back to the well.
> >> What I would like to know is my gut feeling correct, which is that > after receiving an allocation of IPv6, nearly nobody ever returns to the > well for more, or at least not like it was back in the IPv4 days when ARIN > had IPv4 address space to allocate, and thus there are no sticks? > > Your gut is definitely correct to date. However, prior performance does > not predict future results. It’s true that a lot fewer organizations are > likely to come back for additional IPv6 blocks and all will certainly come > back less frequently than in IPv4. Nearly nobody is probably true today. It > will probably remain less than “most” for the foreseeable future, but I > don’t think “nearly nobody” is a permanent state. > > >> Another bit of info I would like to know if possible: what percentage > of customers with a v6 allocation has actually put any of their assignments > into SWIP? Since the current policy for SWIP in IPv6 is /64 or more, every > allocation should be there. > > We do have our IPv6 assignment in SWIP, not sure what percentage of folks do, but it is useful information. > Again, this isn’t necessarily going to yield accurate results. Many > providers use RWHOIS as an alternative to SWIP. Many end users receive a > /48 and it is directly registered by ARIN, so nothing to SWIP. There are > also other situations (dynamic assignments, etc.) that are legitimately > unlikely to result in SWIP. > > >> The answers are useful to determine as far as the documenting the > assignment for ARIN, how useful SWIP is for that purpose. > >> > >> I have a /48 from 2 upstreams. Only one is registered. The other ISP > does not appear to have ANY SWIP entries, even though I have set up the > network with static v6 for at least a dozen customers, each of which > received a /48. > > If that is the case, then that ISP is, indeed, in violation of ARIN policy > and a fraud/abuse report to ARIN would not be out of order. > > >> Another "proxy" for to consider in deciding to SWIP or not might be the > delegation of the reverse DNS for the allocated block. If there is a > delegation, this is another way to find the technical contact other than > SWIP if there is a problem. > > Not really reliable. In reality, there’s only one POC in the SOA and most > providers in my experience populate that POC entry with meaningless > unusable addresses. > > Owen > > >> > >> Albert Erdmann > >> Network Administrator > >> Paradise On Line Inc. > >> > >> > >> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, David Farmer wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:11 PM, David R Huberman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Can you define voluntary? > >>>>> > >>>>> Is the voluntary choice to record a reassignment > >>>>> up to the USP? > >>>>> > >>>>> Or does the choice belong to the end-user? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I think that's a business decision the two parties make together. I > think > >>>> an ISP can choose to SWIP whatever it wants, and should do so with the > >>>> consent of the end-user. I think an end-user should be able to demand > a > >>>> SWIP entry, and the ISP should generally comply. > >>>> > >>> > >>> And if the ISP doesn't comply with the user's demand, can one of their > >>> recourses be to appeal to ARIN? Obviously, in a healthy market > another, > >>> and maybe more effective, option is to get another ISP. However, not > all > >>> markets are healthy and too frequently users have only one realistic > option > >>> for an ISP, especially in rural areas. > >>> > >>> I think it is important that if a user requests a SWIP from an ISP, and > >>> they not given the SWIP, this should be at very least a technical > violation > >>> of ARIN policy. Is ARIN going to revoke an ISP's address space > because of > >>> a single complaint from a user in this regard, of course not, but I > would > >>> expect ARIN to intercede with an ISP on behalf of the user. However, > if > >>> there are repeated issues, especially large numbers of them, and if > there > >>> are other policy violations too, then I would expect harsher actions by > >>> ARIN eventually. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>> -- > >>> =============================================== > >>> David Farmer Email:[email protected] > >>> Networking & Telecommunication Services > >>> Office of Information Technology > >>> University of Minnesota > >>> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815> > >>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952> > >>> =============================================== > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
