I'm in favor of this draft and +1 Albert's suggested language for wording changes.
-- Brian E Jones On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:10 AM, <hostmas...@uneedus.com> wrote: > I am in favor of the draft, with or without the changes to make it clearer. > > I suggest the following language for clarity: > > 3) Add new section 6.5.5.4 "Downstream Registration Requests" to the NRPM > that reads "If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of /64 or > more addresses requests publishing of that static assignment in ARIN's > registration database, the ISP must register that static assignment." > > Since "static assignment" is the term in this section, not netblock, I > suggest using this term instead of "netblock". "Of any size" is not > needed, as the language would require the ISP to register in total whatever > size the ISP has assigned to the downstream in the ARIN database if > requested by the downstream recipient, as long as it was /64 or more. > > This language would also prevent requests to register only part of an > assignment. I think this language works in making the intent of the new > section more clear. > > Albert Erdmann > Network Administrator > Paradise On Line Inc. > > > > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, John Santos wrote: > > I think that the "/64 or more addresses" and the "regardless of size" are >> meant to convey that any netblock between a /64 and a /48 can and should be >> registered if the recipient requests it, even if the block is smaller than >> the /47 which would make it mandatory. Perhaps there is better wording >> that would make this clearer. >> >> Three ranges: >> >> 1. smaller than /64: shouldn't be issued, can't be registered. >> 2. /64 through /48: register at recipient's request >> 3. /47 or larger: must be registered >> >> I agree on dynamic assignments >> >> Otherwise, I think this is a much clearer and better update to the >> proposed policy, and can't find any other reason not to support it. (I.E. >> this is a tentative vote FOR, if there is such a thing.) >> >> >> >> On 8/15/2017 3:59 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> >>> I support what I think is the intent, but I have language/editorial nits; >>> >>> 1. In 3) below; Which is it "a /64 or more addresses" or "regardless of >>> size" that requires registration? I think logically we need one or the >>> other, or some qualification on "regardless of size" statement. I think it >>> is a good idea to not require registration of less than a /64. But the >>> current language seems contradictory, and therefore confusing, my >>> recommendation is delete "regardless of size", from the sentence and >>> leaving "a /64 or more addresses". I pretty sure we don't want people >>> having an expectation that they can request the registration of "their" >>> /128 address. >>> >>> 2. Also in 3) below; It would seem to require even dynamic assignments >>> be registered if requested, I don't think that is our intent either, >>> section 6.5.5.1 starts with "Each static IPv6 assignment containing", this >>> needs a similar qualification. >>> >>> Also, I'm fine with the deltas in the policy statement but it would be >>> helpful to see the final resulting policy block, maybe in a separate email >>> so we can all see how the result reads. >>> >>> Thanks, I think we are getting close, maybe one or two more turns of the >>> crank. >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:06 PM, ARIN <i...@arin.net <mailto: >>> i...@arin.net>> 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 >>> <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 >>> <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 >>> <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 administrative burden of 100% customer >>> registration of IPv6 customers is unreasonable, when such is not >>> required for those customers receiving only IPv4 connections. >>> >>> -- >> John Santos >> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. >> 781-861-0670 ext 539 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > 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.