I oppose this policy, although I do understand and agree with the gut feeling
expressed in this thread. For many reasons, a free and global market in IPv4
addresses, which mirrors the goal of a free and global delivery of packets, is
what I think would be best. And this requires trade in all directions.
However, let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Let’s unpack that gut feeling. I think the gut could be reacting in two ways.
First, there is a “balance of trade” argument, which rejects one-way trade
barriers as something to be fought against. Why let our valuable commodities
flow only outwards towards the world?
Second, there is the fairness issue. We all have a sense of fairness and on the
face of it, this is patently unfair.
For the first argument, let me say that we have North American address owners
seeking to sell, and this proposal artificially limits their ability to do
that. Is it proper, and our role, to punish these North American entities? Is
the correct answer to limited trade even more limited trade? And what of that
trade imbalance, wouldn’t this proposal exacerbate that imbalance by precluding
the sale of North American assets to swaths of the world?
For the second argument, fairness, let us regard the fairness of ipv4
distribution around the world. I know the gut feeling of some in Latin America
or Asia or Africa regarding this issue of fairness would have a different
expression, when they see that every North American citizen got 5 addresses and
every one of them got to share a single ipv4 address with 1000 of their
neighbors. Yes, for some countries the ratio is 5000:1 in our favor.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Media/Internet/IP-addresses-per-capita
RIPE, the registry which I consider most advanced in terms of IPv4 market
policies, and the registry which processes the largest number of transfers, has
already agreed to send addresses via a one-way policy to other RIRs.
LACNIC and AFRINIC have discussed one-way policies, and I think it is easy to
understand, from their perspectives, the fear of allowing already scarce
addresses to leave those regions. I have heard the fear that this would provide
incentive for networks in their region to convert to CGN in order to sell their
resources to the wealthy nations who already enjoy many addresses.
But the bottom line is that address flow is a result of market forces and not
policy. When the supply is in one region and the demand in another, forces act
as one would expect to move addresses. But when registry stewards stand
athwart that flow and say “Stop! Our regard for fairness is outraged!” then,
like water finds its level, addresses will find their way to those in need.
The net result is things like zombie corporations changing hands, leases which
are invisible to Whois, artificial pricing imbalances, and overall
unpleasantness.
Let’s accept one-way transfers as a recognition of the reality of the
historical artifact of address allocation, and as a step in the direction of a
true global market, albeit a half-step. This proposal, on the other hand, is a
step backwards. Those one-way regions are not suppliers of addresses to the
market, so requiring outbound transfers from them will have no effect. On the
other hand, denying needed addresses to these address-poor regions will affect
them direly.
Regards,
Mike Burns
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rudolph Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 9:15 AM
To: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy
Thank you Owen, and I remember those exact words when the policy was formulated
and I accept that too. Of course, the community did not, at that time see the
loop hole we are currently trying to close. So I was being cautious in that
whilst we can modify the wording, to achieve a close, is arin staff also
confident that it can be implemented. Of course I also appreciate that what
ever we as a community do, there is always some out there looking or searching
for yet another loop hole.
rd
Rudi Daniel
danielcharles consulting
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
It is achievable because ARIN will evaluate the policy of each RIR in this
regard prior to approving the transfer.
Owen
On Aug 18, 2017, at 12:36 , Rudolph Daniel <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
" Recipient RIR policy must not permit transfers to other RIRs or NIRs whose
policies do not support bi-directional transfers."
Whereas I am in support of closing this loophole, I cannot be sure that this is
actually achievable...
rd
On Aug 17, 2017 6:01 PM, <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of
Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
(Paul McNary)
2. Draft Policy 2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirements for
Inter RIR Transfers (WOOD Alison * DAS)
3. Re: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of
Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> )
4. Re: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of
Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
(David Farmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:49:47 -0500
From: Paul McNary <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> >
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and
IPv6
Message-ID: <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Sorry I typed the numbers backwards, yes, that is what I meant. :-)
A /48 is smaller than a /47 and would not be required to be registered?
A /47 would need to be
On 8/17/2017 1:30 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
The opposite - a /47 is 2 /48s aggregated.
-C
On Aug 17, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Paul McNary <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
A /47 is smaller than a /48 and would not be required to be registered?
On 8/17/2017 12:50 PM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
wrote:
I note that any ISP size reassignment, with the recommended /48 for each end
user site, will be /47 or larger, which must always be registered.
Thus, I think 6.5.5.5 language is unneeded, since any LIR/ISP reassignment will
be large enough to already trigger registration.
Under the current policy, LIR's and ISP's are equal, so usually both terms are
stated in any policy that mentions them.
May I also suggest that if we are going to require registration upon downstream
request for IPv6, that we consider placing the same language and requirements
for IPv4 customers as well? And if we do, where do we draw the minimum line?
Maybe a /32....
Also, good catch on the cut and paste error.....
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Leif Sawyer wrote:
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 [[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] on
behalf of David Farmer [[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:53 AM
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
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, <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[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<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)%20861-0670> <tel:781-861-0670%20ext%
<tel:781-861-0670%20ext%25> 20539>
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >).
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 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > if you experience any issues.
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:[email protected] <mailto:email%[email protected]>
<mailto:email%[email protected] <mailto:email%[email protected]> >
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 <tel:612-626-0815>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <tel:612-812-9952>
===============================================
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> ).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]> ).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any
issues.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 20:54:23 +0000
From: WOOD Alison * DAS <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>
To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> >
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2017-6: Improve Reciprocity
Requirements for Inter RIR Transfers
Message-ID:
<b0ca7478a1f03f4ca96a93288751a91a01a47cf...@wporgexcl10.entss.or.gov
<mailto:b0ca7478a1f03f4ca96a93288751a91a01a47cf...@wporgexcl10.entss.or.gov> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thank you for the feedback on this draft policy to date. I would appreciate
any other thoughts or comments on this draft policy.
For review, Draft Policy 2017-6 is intended to add the following conditions on
Inter RIR transfers to section 8.4:
Recipient RIR policy must not permit transfers to other RIRs or NIRs whose
policies do not support bi-directional transfers.
And the problem statement on this draft policy is:
Currently ARIN's requirement that inter-RIR transfer policies be reciprocal has
a glaring hole in it in that RIRs which have NIRs and/or a two-hop RIR transfer
process can be used to circumvent the intent of the requirement. Rather than
eliminate the requirement, a better approach would be to close the loophole.
All feedback is appreciated.
Thank you
-Alison Wood
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170817/22d7858b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:00:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> >
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and
IPv6
Message-ID: <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-unknown"; Format="flowed"
While the most recent drafts have not dealt with IPv4, in the last round
there was a proposal to require registration upon request of the
downstream customer of their IPv6 assignment.
If we intend to provide that power to require registration for IPv6
customer assignments upon request, in fairness we should also use the same
language in a new 4.2.3.7.4 to allow static IPv4 customers that same
power. I suggest /32 as the limit, as /29 or more already has required
registration. The same problems identfied in not being able to register
assignments with ARIN for v6 are also true for v4 assignments between
those limits.
Since both protocols are still being addressed and attempts are being
made by the draft to make v6 equal or better than v4, the title should
remain. The only thing we have done is not shift the v4 limit of /29.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
While we???re turning the crank, can we please fix the title since IPv4
is no longer relevant to the proposal and there???s really no
equalization happening?
Perhaps ???Improved Registration Requirements for IPv6???
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 17:01:09 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
To: Leif Sawyer <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Cc: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> >,
"[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> >
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and
IPv6
Message-ID:
<CAN-Dau0+4ms_7V-=y89zavkp+duwvhk932fbkfburtb_ryy...@mail.gmail.com
<mailto:y89zavkp%[email protected]> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:43 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Inline.
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Leif Sawyer <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, David.
...
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.
ISP re-allocations need to be registered regardless of size or if it is
being advertised or not. For example, if for some stupid reason a /56 was
re-allocated to downsterm ISP so they could assign /64s to customers that
has to be registered, by 6.5.5.1 that wouldn't have to be registered.
Should you re-allocate a /56, @!@#$ NO!!! But if you did, it has to be
registered. This is so LEA and other legal requests get directly to the
correct ISP the first time. I think this is important enough issue that it
should have it's own section, and not get blended in to 6.5.5.1.
Now should that be part of this policy maybe not, maybe this belongs in
ARIN-2017-3 or whole new separate policy proposal instead.
Thinking about this for the last couple hours I'm thinking 6.5.5.5 this
should not be part of this policy. As similar text should be added in the
IPv4 section, and this should have a somewhat different problem statement
as well.
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:[email protected] <mailto:email%[email protected]>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 <tel:612-626-0815>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <tel:612-812-9952>
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170817/7e7a2fcd/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
------------------------------
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 146, Issue 10
******************************************
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> ).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[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.
