+1 - Support as written. I know +1's aren't strictly needed in Last Call, but I want to explicitly state that I agree with the AC that sufficient consideration and discussion was given to the "should" vs. "shall" question before and during the PPM, and therefore I agree it is appropriate to send the policy to Last Call (and on to the board, if no un-considered objections are raised) without another public policy meeting/consultation.
-Scott On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:16 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote: > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 6 October 2017 and decided to send > the following to Last Call: > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration > Requirements > > The AC provided the following statement to the community: > > "Based on strong community support - on both the Public Policy Mailing > List and in person at ARIN 40 during the policy consultation - for > replacing the "should" qualifier in section 6.5.5.4 with "shall", the > Advisory Council, after careful review and discussion, has made the > requested change to the text." > > Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should be > provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This Last Call period will > expire on 10 November 2017. After Last Call, the AC will conduct their Last > Call review. > > The full text is below and available at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ > > The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Regards, > > Sean Hopkins > Policy Analyst > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > AC's Statement of Conformance with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number > Resource Policy: > > This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number > policy for easier IPv6 Registrations. The staff and legal review noted a > single clarification issue which has been addressed. There is ample support > for the proposal on PPML and no concerns have been raised by the community > regarding the proposal. > > 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 > "assignment containing a /64 or more addresses" and change to > "re-allocation, reassignment containing a /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 shall 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.
