In support of the new policy wording re: swip requirements. https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html
Rudi Daniel On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:16 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to > [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] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [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: ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy (Mike Burns) > 2. Re: ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy (Andrew Sullivan) > 3. Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - August 2017 (ARIN) > 4. Re: Revised/Retitled: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 > Registration Requirements ([email protected]) > 5. Re: Revised/Retitled: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 > Registration Requirements (Jason Schiller) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:14:33 -0400 > From: "Mike Burns" <[email protected]> > To: "'Owen DeLong'" <[email protected]> > Cc: "'Rudolph Daniel'" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Let?s not. This is a really bad idea and if we don?t put a stop to it now, > it will likely never get corrected. > > > > Owen > > > > > > Hi Owen, > > > > In almost 5 years of inter-regional transfers, David Farmer identified two > transfers of /22s from ARIN into a one-way situation. > > > > At this rate, if it doesn?t ?get corrected?, in just 32 years a whole ARIN > /16 will have disappeared! > > Not really that bad. > > > > On the other hand, blocking all transfers to APNIC *is* a really bad idea, > as is strong-arming that registry *again* through the threat of preventing > access to ARIN address space. > > > > Regards, > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/ > attachments/20170828/902e6e0c/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:51:58 -0400 > From: Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:14:33PM -0400, Mike Burns wrote: > > Let?s not. This is a really bad idea and if we don?t put a stop to it > now, it will likely never get corrected. > > What exactly needs to get corrected, then? You are arguing from a > slippery slope, but nobody seems to be slipping. > > A > > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > [email protected] > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:20:53 -0400 > From: ARIN <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - August > 2017 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > The AC has abandoned the following Draft Policy: > > > > ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks > > > > The AC provided the following statement: > > > > "The ARIN Advisory Council has chosen to abandon Policy Proposal 2017-2, > "Removal of Community Networks," due to lack of community support and the > introduction of an alternative policy proposal to amend the definition of > "community network." > > > > Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The > deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's > draft meeting minutes are published. > > > > > The AC has abandoned the following Draft Policy: > > > > ARIN-2017-7: Retire Obsolete Section 4 from the NRPM > > > > The AC provided the following statement: > > > > "The ARIN Advisory Council has chosen to abandon Policy Proposal 2017-7, > ?Retire Obsolete Section 4 from the NRPM?. This proposal did not gain > sufficient community support to justify continuing to move this policy > forward, and as such, we have requested that the policy be abandoned." > > > > Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The > deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's > draft meeting minutes are published. > > > The minutes from the ARIN Advisory Council's 17 August 2017 meeting have > been published: > > https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/ac2017_0817.html > > The petition deadline for both Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2 and Draft Policy > ARIN-2017-7 is 3 September 2017 (in five calendar days). > > For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP > Petitions at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html > > The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Sean Hopkins > Policy Analyst > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Advisory Council Meeting Results - August 2017 > Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:38:43 -0400 > From: ARIN <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > > In accordance with the Policy Development Process (PDP), the Advisory > Council (AC) met on 17 August 2017. > > > > The AC has abandoned the following Draft Policy: > > ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks > > The AC provided the following statement: > > "The ARIN Advisory Council has chosen to abandon Policy Proposal 2017-2, > "Removal of Community Networks," due to lack of community support and > the introduction of an alternative policy proposal to amend the > definition of "community network." > > Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The > deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's > draft meeting minutes are published. > > > > The AC has abandoned the following Draft Policy: > > ARIN-2017-7: Retire Obsolete Section 4 from the NRPM > > The AC provided the following statement: > > "The ARIN Advisory Council has chosen to abandon Policy Proposal 2017-7, > ?Retire Obsolete Section 4 from the NRPM?. This proposal did not gain > sufficient community support to justify continuing to move this policy > forward, and as such, we have requested that the policy be abandoned." > > Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The > deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's > draft meeting minutes are published. > > > > The AC has advanced the following Proposal to Draft Policy status (will > be posted separately for discussion): > > ARIN-prop-243: Amend the Definition of Community Network > > The AC advances Proposals to Draft Policy status once they are found to > be within the scope of the PDP, and contain a clear problem statement > and suggested changes to Internet number resource policy text. > > > > The AC is continuing to work on: > > * ARIN-2017-3: Update to NPRM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation > * ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers > * ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements > * ARIN-2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers > > 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) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 21:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised/Retitled: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: > Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > I think we got it this time. > > I support. > > Albert Erdmann > Network Administrator > Paradise On Line Inc. > > > On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, ARIN wrote: > > > The following has been revised: > > > > * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements > > > > Revised text is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html > > > > Note that the Draft Policy title has changed from "Equalization of > Assignment > > Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6" > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements > > > > 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 6.5.5.2. "Assignments visible within 7 days" of the > NRPM to > > strike the text "4.2.3.7.1" and change to "6.5.5.1" > > > > and > > > > 3) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the NRPM by > > deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks" > > > > and > > > > 4) Add new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested by Recipient" of the > > NRPM, to read: "If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of > /64 or > > more addresses requests publishing of that assignment in ARIN's > registration > > database, the ISP must register that assignment as described in section > > 6.5.5.1." > > > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:15:41 -0400 > From: Jason Schiller <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised/Retitled: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: > Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements > Message-ID: > <CAC4yj2VHVaLzjyLxJ7+F67AL7_MaTy++FyrDUR+_6iN0y6GHzw@mail. > gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > The new policy (along with pre-existing text) will read as follows: > > 6.5.5.1. Reassignment information > Each static IPv6 assignment containing a /47 or more addresses, or > subdelegation > of any size that will be individually announced, shall be registered in the > WHOIS > directory via SWIP or a distributed service which meets the standards set > forth in section 3.2. Reassignment registrations shall include each > client's > organizational information, except where specifically exempted by this > policy. > > 6.5.5.2. Assignments visible within 7 days > All assignments shall be made visible as required in section 6.5.5.1 within > seven > calendar days of assignment. > > 6.5.5.3. Residential Subscribers > 6.5.5.3.1. Residential Customer Privacy > To maintain the privacy of their residential customers, an organization > with downstream > residential customers may substitute that organization's name for the > customer's name, > e.g. 'Private Customer - XYZ Network', and the customer's street address > may read > 'Private Residence'. Each private downstream residential reassignment must > have > accurate upstream Abuse and Technical POCs visible on the WHOIS record for > that > block. > > 6.5.5.4 Registration Requested by Recipient > If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of /64 or more addresses > requests > publishing of that assignment in ARIN's registration database, the ISP must > register > that assignment as described in section 6.5.5.1. > > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:02 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think we got it this time. > > > > I support. > > > > Albert Erdmann > > Network Administrator > > Paradise On Line Inc. > > > > > > > > On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, ARIN wrote: > > > > The following has been revised: > >> > >> * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements > >> > >> Revised text is below and can be found at: > >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html > >> > >> Note that the Draft Policy title has changed from "Equalization of > >> Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6" > >> > >> 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) > >> > >> > >> > >> Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements > >> > >> 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 6.5.5.2. "Assignments visible within 7 days" of the > NRPM > >> to strike the text "4.2.3.7.1" and change to "6.5.5.1" > >> > >> and > >> > >> 3) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the NRPM > by > >> deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks" > >> > >> and > >> > >> 4) Add new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested by Recipient" of the > >> NRPM, to read: "If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of > /64 > >> or more addresses requests publishing of that assignment in ARIN's > >> registration database, the ISP must register that assignment as > described > >> in section 6.5.5.1." > >> > >> 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. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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. > > > > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]|571-266-0006 > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/ > attachments/20170830/4b635cb3/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > ------------------------------ > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 146, Issue 25 > ****************************************** >
_______________________________________________ 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.
