Jason /Chris Thank you for the comment; good to go...I will go with "shall".
Rudi Daniel *danielcharles consulting <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>* On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Jason Schiller <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/20170 >>> 928/6d6c415b/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/20170 >>> 928/0fbeb396/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 <(571)%20266-0006> > >
_______________________________________________ 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.
