Rudi, Thanks for commenting on the "shall question". Chris,
Can you comment on the "shall" question? Rudi, As it currently stands all static IPv6 customers with a /64 or more are SWIP'd "Each static IPv6 assignment containing a /64 or more addresses shall be registered in the WHOIS directory via SWIP" Dynamic customers don't get a re-assignment or re-allocation. Usually there is a large aggregate re-assigned to the ISP and designated as used by that ISP's customers in a given market. I imagine there are not very many customers with a static IPv6 address smaller than a /64 who would want their address SWIP'd, likely even less who plan to have static down stream customers, and certainly won't be multi-homing, or routing their space discreetly. In the unlikely event that there are, I expect there would be a 6 month time period pending implementation, and even after that point ARIN would happily work with ISPs who are working in good faith, and making progress towards removing hurdles to accomplish this. As it stands this proposed policy has a lower SWIP burden than the current one. ___Jason On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Chris Woodfield <[email protected]> wrote: > Rudolph, > > My reading of the proposal is that the registration is triggered by the > request from the downstream recipient, which implies that if no prior > requests have been received, then there would be no duty to register. > Requests from downstreams received after the policy is implemented would be > subject to these terms. > > I’ll agree that this is ambiguous re: requests from downstreams received > prior to implementation, but in practical terms, I’d expect interested > downstreams to be aware of the policy change and simply resubmit that > request, if the prior request was not granted. > > Thanks, > > -C > > On Sep 28, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Rudolph Daniel <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I am in support of the policy proposal with "shall" but I would like to > know of possible negative impact if approved as policy; on the past > reassignments that were not SWIP ed. > Is this perceived as an issue; or will the policy be retroactive? Either > way. > > > Rudi Daniel > *danielcharles consulting > <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>* > > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:05 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: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 >> Registration Requirements (Owen DeLong) >> 2. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 >> Registration Requirements (Owen DeLong) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:46:01 -0500 >> From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]> >> To: John Curran <[email protected]> >> Cc: Jason Schiller <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: >> Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> Given this, I personally think that shall is the better choice of wording >> for 6.5.5.4. >> >> Owen >> >> > On Sep 27, 2017, at 4:59 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > On 26 Sep 2017, at 3:18 PM, Jason Schiller <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> >> I oppose as written. >> >> >> >> There should not be a different standard of requirement for: >> >> - re-allocation >> >> - reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses >> >> - subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced >> >> >> >> which is "shall" >> >> >> >> and Registration Requested by Recipient >> >> >> >> which is "should" >> >> >> >> I would support if they are both "shall". >> >> >> >> Can ARIN staff discuss what actions it will take if an ISP's >> >> down stream customer contacts them and explains that their >> >> ISP refuses to SWIP their reassignment to them? >> >> >> >> Will they do anything more than reach out to the ISP and tell >> >> them they "should" SWIP it? >> > >> > Jason - >> > >> > If this policy change 2017-5 is adopted, then a provider that has >> IPv6 space from ARIN >> > but routinely fails to publish registration information (for /47 or >> larger reassignments) >> > would be in violation, and ARIN would have clear policy language >> that would enable >> > us to discuss with the ISP the need to publish this information in a >> timely manner. >> > >> > Service providers who blatantly ignore such a provision on an >> ongoing basis will be >> > in the enviable position of hearing me chat with them about their >> obligations to follow >> > ARIN number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. >> potential revocation >> > of the IPv6 number resources.) >> > >> > If the langauge for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested >> by Recipient? >> > reads ?? the ISP should register that assignment?, then ARIN would >> send on any >> > received customer complaint to the ISP, and remind the ISP that they >> should >> > follow number resource policy in this regard but not otherwise >> taking any action. >> > >> > If the language for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested >> by Recipient? >> > reads ?? the ISP shall register that assignment?, then failure to do >> so would be >> > a far more serious matter that, if left unaddressed on a chronic >> manner, could have >> > me discussing the customer complaints as a sign of potential failure >> to comply with >> > number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. potential >> revocation of >> > the IPv6 number resources.) >> > >> > I would note that the community should be very clear about its >> intentions for ISPs >> > with regard to customer requested reassignment publication, given >> there is large >> > difference in obligations that result from policy language choice. >> ARIN staff remains, >> > as always, looking forward to implementing whatever policy emerges >> from the >> > consensus-based policy development process. >> > >> > Thanks! >> > /John >> > >> > John Curran >> > President and CEO >> > American Registry for Internet Numbers >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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. >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/ >> 20170928/6d6c415b/attachment-0001.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:03:55 -0500 >> From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]> >> To: Kevin Blumberg <[email protected]> >> Cc: John Curran <[email protected]>, Jason Schiller >> <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: >> Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> While I wouldn?t consider it an editorial change, I would consider it a >> minor change, which, if it had good community discussion and support at the >> meeting, would, IMHO, be within the scope of pre-last-call changes that >> could be made between the PPM and last call. >> >> The AC has, as has been mentioned before, significant discretion in >> determining what is a ?minor change?. >> >> This is strictly my own opinion and may or may not be shared by other AC >> members, staff, or anyone else. >> >> Owen >> >> > On Sep 28, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Kevin Blumberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I support the policy as written. <> >> > >> > If the stick isn?t big enough it appears a simple policy change could >> be used, not just for this section but all the other areas ?should? is used. >> > >> > I would like to point out that ?should? is currently used 30 times in >> the NRPM. >> > >> > In reading John?s explanation, I can?t see ?should? and ?shall? being >> considered an editorial change. To extend the policy cycle to another >> meeting would be far worse. >> > >> > Out of curiosity, how often has ARIN had to deal with SWIP issues like >> this, where the other party ignored you? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Kevin Blumberg >> > >> > >> > From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John >> Curran >> > Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 5:59 PM >> > To: Jason Schiller <[email protected]> >> > Cc: [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved >> IPv6 Registration Requirements >> > >> > On 26 Sep 2017, at 3:18 PM, Jason Schiller <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> > I oppose as written. >> > >> > There should not be a different standard of requirement for: >> > - re-allocation >> > - reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses >> > - subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced >> > >> > which is "shall" >> > >> > and Registration Requested by Recipient >> > >> > which is "should" >> > >> > I would support if they are both "shall". >> > >> > Can ARIN staff discuss what actions it will take if an ISP's >> > down stream customer contacts them and explains that their >> > ISP refuses to SWIP their reassignment to them? >> > >> > Will they do anything more than reach out to the ISP and tell >> > them they "should" SWIP it? >> > >> > Jason - >> > >> > If this policy change 2017-5 is adopted, then a provider that has >> IPv6 space from ARIN >> > but routinely fails to publish registration information (for /47 or >> larger reassignments) >> > would be in violation, and ARIN would have clear policy language >> that would enable >> > us to discuss with the ISP the need to publish this information in a >> timely manner. >> > >> > Service providers who blatantly ignore such a provision on an >> ongoing basis will be >> > in the enviable position of hearing me chat with them about their >> obligations to follow >> > ARIN number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. >> potential revocation >> > of the IPv6 number resources.) >> > >> > If the langauge for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested >> by Recipient? >> > reads ?? the ISP should register that assignment?, then ARIN would >> send on any >> > received customer complaint to the ISP, and remind the ISP that they >> should >> > follow number resource policy in this regard but not otherwise >> taking any action. >> > >> > If the language for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested >> by Recipient? >> > reads ?? the ISP shall register that assignment?, then failure to do >> so would be >> > a far more serious matter that, if left unaddressed on a chronic >> manner, could have >> > me discussing the customer complaints as a sign of potential failure >> to comply with >> > number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. potential >> revocation of >> > the IPv6 number resources.) >> > >> > I would note that the community should be very clear about its >> intentions for ISPs >> > with regard to customer requested reassignment publication, given >> there is large >> > difference in obligations that result from policy language choice. >> ARIN staff remains, >> > as always, looking forward to implementing whatever policy emerges >> from the >> > consensus-based policy development process. >> > >> > Thanks! >> > /John >> > >> > John Curran >> > President and CEO >> > American Registry for Internet Numbers >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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. >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/ >> 20170928/0fbeb396/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 147, Issue 43 >> ****************************************** >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ 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.
