I support the policy as amended. My primary concern was addressed by staff during discussion on the floor.
While I prefer should, the improvement this policy makes is significant enough that I support it moving forward with shall. There is a cost to automation and there is a cost to manually SWIP’ing. Based on the response from the floor (please correct me if I understood it incorrectly). I can charge a nominal fee where appropriate, as my business practice. If a client refuses the fee, that does not put me out of compliance with the policy. Thanks, Kevin Blumberg From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 7:30 PM To: Carlton Samuels <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements I’d like to request that if anyone objects to the change made in sending the recommended draft to last call (should->shall), they make that clear. I believe we it is likely “Support as written” will actually be interpreted as “Support as amended and sent to last call”. Sorry for being pedantic, but as an AC member, I’d like to make sure that we have the clearest possible understanding of community intent as we move forward. Thanks, Owen On Oct 11, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Carlton Samuels <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Support as written. -CAS ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:16 PM, ARIN <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
