David posted the main issues about the policy: >The questions at hand are whether or not this policy; > 1. Enables Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration My take from the discussion so far is no. > 3. And, is Supported by the Community Apparently not. > In short, is this a good policy? It really does not matter if there is no substantial community support.
José R. de la Cruz [email protected] On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 8:17 PM David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > In my opinion, this policy is saying that people can't grow their IPv4 > network unless they can demonstrate IPv6 capabilities. If you need to grow > your IPv4 network, this policy seems somewhat coercive, at least to me. > Yes, you can decide not to grow your IPv4 network, in that technical > sense it's optional. However, if you need to grow your IPv4 network, doing > so doesn't usually seem all that optional, and neither is complying with > this policy if you need to grow your IPv4 network and the policy is > adopted. So, if you need to grow your IPv4 network, saying this policy > forces you to do IPv6 doesn't seem completely out of line. > > Yes, this is a valid policy proposal and threats to sue over it should be > ignored at least at this point. Further along in the process, ARIN will > provide a Staff and Legal Review which will analyze any legal risk. If > there is any legal risk called out, that will need to be considered > carefully, but we are not at that point yet. > > The questions at hand are whether or not this policy; > > 1. Enables Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > 2. Is Technically Sound > 3. And, is Supported by the Community > > In short, is this a good policy? You provided some reasons why you > think it is a good policy, others, including me, have provided reasons why > they think it is not a good policy. > > Let's continue the discussion. > > Thanks. > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 4:40 PM Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I wanted to kindly request AC members attention to all objections based >> on the argument that "ARIN is forcing someone to do something on their own >> network". >> >> This is NOT true at all and not the propose of this proposal therefore I >> believe these kind of objections have been refuted multiple times already. >> >> With regards the proposal this community has the right to estabilish >> whatever conditions for the RIR registration related stuff it finds better >> for the RIR and the Internet to continue working healthy in the region. >> >> For example the increasing cost imposed to all others by those who wishes >> to remain in the past and the growing conflicts due to the current scenario >> are good point for this community to evaluate. >> >> Also I am finding some people having trouble with the mechanism to >> validate IPv6 is operational and would really like to hear other points of >> view about more effective way that process can be validaded and be more >> effective in their point of view. >> >> Regards >> Fernando >> >> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:06 Brett Frankenberger, <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 12:55:50PM -0500, ARIN wrote: >>> > On 1 November 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted >>> "ARIN-prop-278: >>> > Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers" as a Draft >>> Policy. >>> > >>> > Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19 is below and can be found at: >>> > >>> > Policy statement: >>> > >>> > In section 8.5.2, add the following language to the end of the >>> paragraph >>> > entitled “Operational Use”: >>> > >>> > Such operational network must at minimum include an allocation or >>> assignment >>> > by ARIN of IPv6 address space under the same Org ID receiving the >>> > transferred IPv4 space. Such Org must be able to prove this IPv6 space >>> is >>> > being routed by using it to communicate with ARIN. >>> > >>> > In the event the receiver provides a written statement from its >>> upstream >>> > that IPv6 connectivity is unavailable, the IPv6 requirement may be >>> waived. >>> >>> Opposed for multiple reasons. >>> >>> First, it should not be ARINs role to dictate the manner in which >>> networks are operated. We have routinely resisted the notion that, for >>> example, spammers should have resources revoked. Now we're proposing >>> to deny resources to networks that decide not to operate IPv6. >>> >>> Second, the proposal is premised on the idea that IP addresses are >>> solely allocated for the purpose of operation on the public network, >>> despite policy being clear that that's not the case. While that's >>> certainly the predominate use case, there is nothing that prevents a >>> private interconnected network from operating on >>> ARIN-assigned/allocated public space without connecting to the >>> Internet. Are we proposing to deny any future transfers for such >>> networks? They would by their nature be unable to prove IPv6 >>> connectivity to ARIN (except as a stunt -- see below) and would be >>> unable to get a statement from their upstream (since they would have >>> none) as to the availability of IPv6 connectivity. >>> >>> Third, this encourages meaningless stunts. A network that does not >>> desire to opreate V6 is not going to reconsider that decision as a >>> result of this policy. At best, they will get an IPv6 allocation or >>> assignment from ARIN, route it to one subnet, put a device on it long >>> enough to perform whatever ceremony ARIN requires to prove IPV6 >>> connectivity, get their transfer, and then shut it down (or maybe leave >>> it there in case they have to reperform the ceremony should they >>> transfer additional addresses in the future). More likely, this will >>> cause the creation of a new industry: organizations needing to complete >>> an IPv6 connectivity validation to get a IPv4 transfer processed will >>> sign a LOA granting their Ceremony Consultant the right to announce >>> their IPv6 allocation/assignment long enough to complete the ceremony, >>> and their consultant will do all the work necessary to get the required >>> box checked in ARIN's systesm. >>> >>> This will not drive IPv6 adoption. I oppose the use of ARIN or >>> community resources on stunts, and I oppose the creation of a "IPv6 >>> Ceremony Consultant" industry. >>> >>> -- Brett >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-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: >>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-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: >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >> > > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:[email protected] > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >
_______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
