On Nov 6, 2019, at 13:40 , 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.
I cannot speak for the entire AC, but this AC member (at least until
the end of the year) is well aware of your position on the matter. I
do not, however,
share this opinion.
Insisting that people make an IPv6 address pingable in order to
receive IPv4 resources via transfer strikes me as an effort to push
those who do not wish to
do IPv6 into doing so.
As such, it is about forcing someone to do something on their own
network.
This is a valid objection to the policy. It may be an objection the
community decides to overrule or dismiss, but it is an objection,
nonetheless.
You may not like that objection, and that’s fine. You’ve said so, and
we’ve heard you.
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.
This is also true, but the people you are dismissing because you
don’t like their objections are just as much members of the community
as you are. They have
every right to object to the policy on whatever basis they feel is in
their best interests or that of the community.
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.
Here, I agree with you. I don’t agree that what is proposed will help
resolve that issue. I do think we will have many discussions about
how to resolve this
particular problem in the coming years.
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.
This is a very tough question. I think that all of the corner cases
that would exist in response to this question are a perfectly valid
reason not to
inflict this proposed policy on the community.
Owen
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.
