Concur with the above, Support the draft as written. On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Chris Woodfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> Agreed. While there are a wide range of opinions on where this line > belongs, The /47 line appears to have the most consensus, and has my > support. > > -Chris > > > On Aug 15, 2017, at 11:03 AM, David Huberman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Very well done, everyone! Strongly support this draft. > > > > Kudos to Albert Erdmann and the AC shepherds for their leadership on > this proposal. > > > > > >> On Aug 15, 2017, at 1:06 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> The following has been revised: > >> > >> * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration > requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 > >> > >> Revised text is below and can be found at: > >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html > >> > >> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will > evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft > policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated > in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are: > >> > >> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > >> * Technically Sound > >> * Supported by the Community > >> > >> The PDP can be found at: > >> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > >> > >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Sean Hopkins > >> Policy Analyst > >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Problem Statement: > >> > >> Current ARIN policy has different WHOIS directory registration > requirements for IPv4 vs IPv6 address assignments. IPv4 registration is > triggered for an assignment of any address block equal to or greater than a > /29 (i.e., eight IPv4 addresses). In the case of IPv6, registration occurs > for an assignment of any block equal to or greater than a /64, which > constitutes one entire IPv6 subnet and is the minimum block size for an > allocation. Accordingly, there is a significant disparity between IPv4 and > IPv6 WHOIS registration thresholds in the case of assignments, resulting in > more work in the case of IPv6 than is the case for IPv4. There is no > technical or policy rationale for the disparity, which could serve as a > deterrent to more rapid IPv6 adoption. The purpose of this proposal is to > eliminate the disparity and corresponding adverse consequences. > >> > >> Policy statement: > >> > >> 1) Alter section 6.5.5.1 "Reassignment information" of the NRPM to > strike "/64 or more addresses" and change to "/47 or more addresses, or > subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced," > >> > >> and > >> > >> 2) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the NRPM > by deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks" > >> > >> and > >> > >> 3) Add new section 6.5.5.4 "Downstream Registration Requests" to the > NRPM that reads "If the downstream recipient of a netblock ( a /64 or more > addresses) requests publishing in ARIN's registration database, the ISP > must register the netblock, regardless of size." > >> > >> Comments: > >> > >> a. Timetable for implementation: Policy should be adopted as soon as > possible. > >> > >> b. Anything else: > >> > >> Author Comments: > >> > >> IPv6 should not be more burdensome than the equivalent IPv4 network > size. Currently, assignments of /29 or more of IPv4 space (8 addresses) > require registration. The greatest majority of ISP customers who have > assignments of IPv4 space are of a single IPv4 address which do not trigger > any ARIN registration requirement when using IPv4. This is NOT true when > these same exact customers use IPv6, as assignments of /64 or more of IPv6 > space require registration. Beginning with RFC 3177, it has been standard > practice to assign a minimum assignment of /64 to every customer end user > site, and less is never used. This means that ALL IPv6 assignments, > including those customers that only use a single IPv4 address must be > registered with ARIN if they are given the minimum assignment of /64 of > IPv6 space. This additional effort may prevent ISP's from giving IPv6 > addresses because of the additional expense of registering those addresses > with ARIN, which is not required for IPv4. The ad > m > > inistrative burden of 100% customer registration of IPv6 customers is > unreasonable, when such is not required for those customers receiving only > IPv4 connections. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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.
