Thanks for the feedback, David.
I've added the fix for 6.5.5.2, since we're already in the section.
I've also modified the text for 6.5.5.4 as well, because I think your
suggesting is a little cleaner.
I'm not sure what the point of 6.5.5.5 is - you're just reiterating 6.5.5.1.
That said, we could potentially clean up 6.5.5.1 by extending "static IPv6
assignment"
to "static IPv6 assignment, or allocation," - or something similar.
Which also brings to mind the question: LIR or ISP? Both are in use in
6.5....
________________________________
From: ARIN-PPML [arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] on behalf of David Farmer
[far...@umn.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:53 AM
To: hostmas...@uneedus.com
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of
Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
[External Email]
Here is a slightly different formulation to consider. I refactored the title a
little, and based the phrasing on other parts of section 6.5.5
6.5.5.4 Registration Requested by Recipient
If requested by the downstream recipient of a block, each static IPv6
assignment containing a /64 or more addresses, shall be registered, as
described in section 6.5.5.1.
I'd like us to think about adding an additional section, based on previous
discussions.
6.5.5.5 Re-allocation to ISPs
Each IPv6 re-allocation to a downstream ISP, regardless of size, intended for
further assignment by the downstream ISP's to it's customers, shall be
registered, as described in section 6.5.5.1
Also, in Section 6.5.5.2 there is a reference to section 4.2.3.7.1. I think
this is a cut and past error, I think the reference should be to 6.5.5.1.
Please, compare sections 4.2.3.7.1 and 4.2.3.7.2 with sections 6.5.5.1 and
6.5.5.2 and I think it is obvious what happened.
Thanks.
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:10 AM,
<hostmas...@uneedus.com<mailto: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>
<mailto: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>
<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>
<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>
<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<tel:781-861-0670%20ext%20539>
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
(ARIN-PPML@arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml<http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
Please contact i...@arin.net<mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any issues.
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu<mailto:email%3afar...@umn.edu>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
