Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

; > -Original Message- > > From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of > > hostmas...@uneedus.com > > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:10 AM > > To: arin-ppml@arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

The first draft of my proposal was very conservative. For v6 I proposed the two smallest possible subnet values be exempted from SWIP, which was /60 and /64. I figured that this would be enough for 16 subnets, enough for IOT and/or guest,wired, and wireless networks on different segments.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

On this thread we've gone from near-real-time update of bus GPS co-ordinates to suggesting allocating over 64 subnets per student for most of our school districts was a bad idea and we should have allocated more(!) Some stats for SY2017 # districts: 317; # districts <=100 students: 46 ;

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

Richard J Letts wrote: As an example we assign /48's to school districts, If it is a really small school district, that is unlikely to expand beyond 16 sites, you could give them a /44, otherwise each district should get at least a /40 or more. A university might need more, or maybe a /40

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

ssage- > > From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of > > hostmas...@uneedus.com > > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:10 AM > > To: arin-ppml@arin.net > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of > > Assignm

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

l-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of > hostmas...@uneedus.com > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:10 AM > To: arin-ppml@arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment > Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21 > >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

I agree that we need to act on THIS draft, and not load up the discussion with other issues that this draft is not intended to address. The one question regarding SWIP/WHOIS policy in general I have moved to another thread since it is unrelated to this draft. This draft is about changing the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

ral practice vs what is OBLIGATORY as per ARIN existing policy. Orin -Original Message- From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen Sent: July-26-17 11:51 AM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Ass

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jul 26, 2017, at 07:20 , Michael Peddemors wrote: > > > > But, in keeping with your 'flippant' style, we do have some ISP's that aren't responsible for the traffic that happens on their

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

> On Jul 26, 2017, at 08:34 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > Im sure glad that /32's of static IPv4 are not subject to SWIP, and that SWIP > does not require GPS info. > > If it did, we would be in trouble, as our GPS tracking only updates every 300 > seconds or 5 minutes, and we would

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

> On Jul 26, 2017, at 07:20 , Michael Peddemors wrote: > > On 17-07-25 02:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Jul 25, 2017, at 10:34 , Michael Peddemors >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 17-07-24 05:06 PM, Tony Hain wrote: I still don’t see any value in

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

I don’t know if it is spelled out in policy, but it is certainly widespread practice and I know of nothing prohibiting it. Owen > On Jul 26, 2017, at 06:50 , Roberts, Orin wrote: > > Ref: Geolocation and SWIPs > > I have seen SWIPs with GPS coordinates similar to the bus

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

I believe that both the existing and proposed policies handle the CPNI issues sufficiently through the ARIN requirement that providers require similar reassignment terms from their assignees and other recipients. Otherwise, yes, I think we are in agreement about the policy. Owen > On Jul 26,

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On 7/26/2017 11:34 AM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: Right now, all 500+ busses use a static IPv4 address, that is assigned by the Major wireless provider. They are NOT in a block reserved for us. They are scattered around several blocks of addresses of the provider, some of which they

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

David, Tony, Thank you for bringing up the IPS must SWIP when address user asks. Scott, Thank you for putting the changes in context. I oppose as written. I support with the David/Tony friendly admendment. Why? > It should be required for an ISP to SWIP / Rwhois any reassignment > when the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On 7/26/17 08:34, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: Im sure glad that /32's of static IPv4 are not subject to SWIP, and that SWIP does not require GPS info. If it did, we would be in trouble, as our GPS tracking only updates every 300 seconds or 5 minutes, and we would need a T1 of bandwidth just

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Im sure glad that /32's of static IPv4 are not subject to SWIP, and that SWIP does not require GPS info. If it did, we would be in trouble, as our GPS tracking only updates every 300 seconds or 5 minutes, and we would need a T1 of bandwidth just to keep the SWIP updated, and for what purpose?

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

On 17-07-25 02:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Jul 25, 2017, at 10:34 , Michael Peddemors wrote: On 17-07-24 05:06 PM, Tony Hain wrote: I still don’t see any value in specifying length. What you are looking for is contact info for someone with a clue about how a given

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Ref: Geolocation and SWIPs I have seen SWIPs with GPS coordinates similar to the bus example; wifi/camera in remote park. “A bus would be SWIPd to the bus yard or administrative offices of the bus company. The SWIP data is not required to be the service address, it is required to be an

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Hello Owen I think we are really almost in total agreement! :-) I think we use words a little differently, but It think we want a similar result. "Address Tracking" was not on my concerns list except for possible CPNI violations which I see a solution of how to handle this. Take care Paul On

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

I called it specious when it was first argued and I continue to call it specious. Owen > On Jul 25, 2017, at 15:12, Paul McNary wrote: > > Owen > Several weeks ago geolocation was one of the arguments for having accurate > whois in this thread. > This is no longer

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

> On Jul 25, 2017, at 15:46, Paul McNary wrote: > > Let me change "geolocation" to "address tracking". > For instance, Netflix blocks a certain region and whois is showing customer > in that region, whereas the customer is actually in a non-blocked region. > If I had my

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

If I, as an End User network, want to inform geolocation providers of where I'm using each netblock, having them assigned to me in the whois DB with an appropriate address is one of the best ways to do that. But if I'm running a geolocation service, I can't rely on whois as the sole source of

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Owen Several weeks ago geolocation was one of the arguments for having accurate whois in this thread. This is no longer being argued? Paul On 7/25/2017 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Huh? WHOIS is not a geolocation service and anyone who thinks it is should reduce their use of recreational

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

"NOTE: IPv6 simple reassigns are only available in the RESTful web service ." On 7/25/2017 4:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: I think you’re misinterpreting something on that page. I might be blind, but I don’t read anything on that page to say

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

> On Jul 25, 2017, at 10:34 , Michael Peddemors wrote: > > On 17-07-24 05:06 PM, Tony Hain wrote: >> I still don’t see any value in specifying length. What you are looking for >> is contact info for someone with a clue about how a given network works and >> using

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Huh? WHOIS is not a geolocation service and anyone who thinks it is should reduce their use of recreational pharmaceuticals. Owen > On Jul 24, 2017, at 12:03 , Paul McNary wrote: > > Then that totally negates the reasoning for geolocation. > The administrative address

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

I think you’re misinterpreting something on that page. I might be blind, but I don’t read anything on that page to say that IPv6 reassignments must be done by RESTful API. I know that in practice you can do IPv6 reassignments via RWHOIS and I believe templates are also supported as well as

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

On 17-07-24 05:06 PM, Tony Hain wrote: I still don’t see any value in specifying length. What you are looking for is contact info for someone with a clue about how a given network works and using length as a really poor proxy. I could live with a fourth line: Any end network emitting SMTP

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

3 PM To: Tony Hain Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21 Actually, let me revise that; I'm willing to recognize at least the possibility there is a legitimate commu

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

Actually, let me revise that; I'm willing to recognize at least the possibility there is a legitimate community interest in having records for assignments that are shorter than /40 for IPv6 and /24 for IPv4. Why, those numbers? They are the sizes at the bottom of ARIN's fee schedule, if anything

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

Honestly, I could live with it just those three lines. However, I'm willing to recognize at least the possibility there is a legitimate community interest in having records for assignments that are shorter than /48. As for IPv4, I'd also be just fine with those three lines. Again, recognizing

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:48 PM, wrote: > In the case of that 69.0.0.0 block we were talking about, it may not be on > the other side of the earth, but certainly in different states. That block > had the serving site as CT, the parent record as TX, and a note in that >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

is explicitly outside the scope of ARIN. Tony From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 7:03 AM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

In the case of that 69.0.0.0 block we were talking about, it may not be on the other side of the earth, but certainly in different states. That block had the serving site as CT, the parent record as TX, and a note in that record to send legal process to FL. Quite a trip. What is the purpose

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

I agree with that! Paul On 7/24/2017 2:00 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: The current proposal language says: /47 or shorter are SWIP’d in all cases. /48 or longer are SWIP’d if they are independently announced. Owen On Jul 24, 2017, at 11:53 , Paul McNary

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:46 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jul 24, 2017, at 04:03 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > /47 or more addresses is intended to be /47, /46 . /1 and not the > reverse. The current language is "/64 or more", and I read that same > phrase as /64, /63

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Then that totally negates the reasoning for geolocation. The administrative address could be on the other side of the earth. Paul On 7/24/2017 1:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Jul 20, 2017, at 14:28 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: My transit bus example is another example of SWIP difficulty.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

The current proposal language says: /47 or shorter are SWIP’d in all cases. /48 or longer are SWIP’d if they are independently announced. Owen > On Jul 24, 2017, at 11:53 , Paul McNary wrote: > > What does the new language say? > I then am totally confused

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

https://www.arin.net/resources/request/reassignments.html On 7/24/2017 1:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Jul 20, 2017, at 13:51 , Paul McNary > wrote: Owen The reassignment policy page says IPv6 has to be done vi API. Is that something else

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

> On Jul 21, 2017, at 00:09 , the...@uneedus.com wrote: > > As for discussion of SWIP for /48's, some have suggested since these are the > recommended minimum assignment for an end site, /48 should not trigger SWIP > unless independently routed. Others believe all /48's be SWIP'ed. Thus the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

What does the new language say? I then am totally confused as I am with the rest of the NPRM! So many contradictions using Missouri English. Paul On 7/24/2017 1:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: That’s not what the new language actually says. Owen On Jul 20, 2017, at 13:26 , Paul McNary

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

> On Jul 24, 2017, at 04:03 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > /47 or more addresses is intended to be /47, /46 . /1 and not the > reverse. The current language is "/64 or more", and I read that same phrase > as /64, /63 . /1. For comparison, the current IPv4 language is "/29 or >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

> On Jul 20, 2017, at 14:28 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > My transit bus example is another example of SWIP difficulty. Very hard to > provide a street address to SWIP a bus when it is mobile 16 hours a day. Not at all. A bus would be SWIPd to the bus yard or administrative offices of

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Dynamic assignments are not required to be registered… STATIC assignments are required to be registered, so that argument doesn’t work. Owen > On Jul 20, 2017, at 13:54 , Chris James wrote: > > @Paul - The API key is to email it. > > @Owen - Very difficult when you have

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

That’s not what the new language actually says. Owen > On Jul 20, 2017, at 13:26 , Paul McNary wrote: > > Yes > > /48 is the SWIP boundary. /48 is SWIP'ed. > /49 is not. > > Paul > > > On 7/20/2017 3:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> My recommendation was “shorter than /48”

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

As for discussion of SWIP for /48's, some have suggested since these are the recommended minimum assignment for an end site, /48 should not trigger SWIP unless independently routed. Others believe all /48's be SWIP'ed. Thus the two main ideas for this proposal currently are: 1) SWIP all

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

"As far as John's comment, this proposal began with a suggestion that changed the v4 requirement as well, making both "more than 16" networks or IPv4 addresses. Since changing the v4 language from 8 addresses to more than 16 addresses was clearly not desired by the community, the v4 language was

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

Thanks, Scott, Are we energetically agreeing? You scared me there for a second. /48s are excluded, unless they are part of a "subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced". Yes. How is that defined by the way? Will be individually announced in 2 years, 2 days, right now? On

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 1:23 PM, wrote: > Boy, am I learning from this process. Please let me know if I am not > defining these terms we are discussing below properly: > Not quite: see NRPM section 2.5; 2.5. Allocate and Assign A distinction is made between address

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

Boy, am I learning from this process. Please let me know if I am not defining these terms we are discussing below properly: Allocation: Directly receiving a block of IP addresses from ARIN. Re-Allocation: Taking part of an Allocation from ARIN, and permitting another ISP/LIR to use this

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

The rewrite is a pretty good step forward, and I support this policy as written, but I also would like to see some additional changes. The following is a summary of what I would like to see the overall policy look like, it is not in policy language but provided as list of requirement, with some

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Leif Sawyer wrote: > Policy statement: > >1) Alter section 6.5.5.1 "Reassignment information" of the NRPM to > strike "/64 or more addresses" and change to "/47 or more addresses, or > sub-delegation of any size that will be individually

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

For the record, I continue to support changing current policy (all IPv6 reassignments are SWIPed) to allow ISP reassignments of /56 to /128 to be made without processing a SWIP entry while continuing to require assignments of /0 to /55 be SWIPed. I remain unconvinced by the more complicated

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

As a rule I seek protection against your bad customers, if you has some. Cheers Marilson From: John Curran Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 8:23 AM To: Marilson Cc: mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requ

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

Even though the /49, /50 ... /128 is technically covered by the "any size" language, for all practical purposes /48 or more is all that can be advertised, as nothing smaller than a /48 is contained in the GRT. Thus, your perception that it covers only sub-delegations of /48 or more is

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

> On Jul 21, 2017, at 8:31 PM, John Springer <3jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I support this Draft Policy as re-written. > > I shared the author's distaste for the requirement that IPV6 /64s be SWIP'd, > but was not reassured when the discussion veered to consider prefixes between > /48 and /64.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

I support this Draft Policy as re-written. I shared the author's distaste for the requirement that IPV6 /64s be SWIP'd, but was not reassured when the discussion veered to consider prefixes between /48 and /64. AFAIK, ISPs have long been encouraged to apply for their allocations based on the idea

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

+1 On 7/21/2017 12:34 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: This looks good: I support. For clarity, so we don't all have to do it, and to help make sure we're not missing anything, here's what the resulting 6.5.5 looks like after modification: 6.5.5. Registration ISPs are required to demonstrate

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

Leif While not a committee member, this is tolerable and workable. We can assign a /48 to every tower (POP) and that will geo locate good enough for the rural area. Geo location by address doesn't work that well in our rural area anyhow. Can be miles off. But using tower location will get it into

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

This looks good: I support. For clarity, so we don't all have to do it, and to help make sure we're not missing anything, here's what the resulting 6.5.5 looks like after modification: 6.5.5. Registration ISPs are required to demonstrate efficient use of IP address space allocations by

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

; *Cc:* arin-ppml@arin.net *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 Gentlemen, let me introduce practical elements into this "difficult and onerous" attitude, but ethical, on the tech and abuse contact

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

ml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 How can it be overly difficult to fill out an email template with your customers’ Name, Address, Phone Number? Really? Owen > On Jul 19, 2017, at 23:48 , Pallieter Koopmans <

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Well I think in the bus example you would swip to the overall authority. But seriously this conversation has gone in so many different directions do any of us remember the original point? My vote as it applies to v6: Non-residential allocations of greater than or equal to a /48. If you as an ISP

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

My transit bus example is another example of SWIP difficulty. Very hard to provide a street address to SWIP a bus when it is mobile 16 hours a day. Current policy says SWIP every /64 or more, which is every network in v6. I did a check here, and in v4, only 1% of customers have more than 8

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Owen The reassignment policy page says IPv6 has to be done vi API. Is that something else that is incorrect on the web site? Paul On 7/20/2017 3:16 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: How can it be overly difficult to fill out an email template with your customers’ Name, Address, Phone Number? Really?

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Hey David, On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 01:54:08PM -0400, David R Huberman wrote: > Hello Joe, > > Thanks for the reply. A reminder that I'm *asking* a genuine question. Sure, and I was supplying my genuine response. My personal hat is still firmly on my head, fwiw. > Now, I wrote: > > >> Whois

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Yes /48 is the SWIP boundary. /48 is SWIP'ed. /49 is not. Paul On 7/20/2017 3:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: My recommendation was “shorter than /48” which would essentially mean the same thing. Owen On Jul 17, 2017, at 15:46 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: The language of "b)" actually

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Owen I agree 100% with your statement below! Longer than a /48. That would eliminate any concerns I have. /48's could be assigned to each POP giving basic location information for any downstream. That is similar to BCP of a /24 for IPv4. If a downstream business request SWIP that we can

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

How can it be overly difficult to fill out an email template with your customers’ Name, Address, Phone Number? Really? Owen > On Jul 19, 2017, at 23:48 , Pallieter Koopmans > wrote: > > Hello, > > ARIN could quantify and require rules for when to SWIP, but in the >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

My recommendation was “shorter than /48” which would essentially mean the same thing. Owen > On Jul 17, 2017, at 15:46 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > The language of "b)" actually makes more sense with a /47: > > Each static IPv6 assignment containing a /47 or more addresses, or >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

This makes the best case I can imagine for why setting the boundary at /56 is a bad idea and we should not be considering anything longer than /48. Owen > On Jul 17, 2017, at 15:40 , Paul McNary wrote: > > Leif > If I understand your question: > > Originally /48 to

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

+1… Well said, Joe. Owen > On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:34 , Joe Provo wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 01:08:49PM -0400, David Huberman wrote: >> In addition to these options/questions, I feel like we glossed >> over the question posed by Marty Hannigan: what is the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

I can accept any of the (now 3) proposals contained in this email. Owen > On Jul 17, 2017, at 09:13 , Jason Schiller wrote: > > I am replying to bring the conversation to one of the suggestions > on the table. > > Owen DeLong's suggesting of SWIP all IPv6 business

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Hello, ARIN could quantify and require rules for when to SWIP, but in the end, there are going to be exceptions needed if the rules are to be strictly followed. Many will not separately SWIP a separately routed sub-block if it is too difficult or pointless to gather and share that data back

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On 19 Jul 2017, at 4:36 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > While thinking about it John, there was some discussion over using the main > facility address in a single SWIP for an entire block that contained many > sites. Is this allowed? Albert - Alas, the only “advice” that I can

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On 17-07-17 10:54 AM, David R Huberman wrote: AT Internet Services SBCIS-SIS80-1005 (NET-69-0-0-0-1) 69.0.0.0 - 69.0.127.255 THE MEDICINE SHOPPE SBC0690030204 (NET-69-0-0-0-2) 69.0.0.0 - 69.0.0.7 When you lookup the specific /29, you get: CustName: THE MEDICINE SHOPPE Address:

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On 19 Jul 2017, at 11:12 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > As I understand it, if the ISP assigned you a /48 and individually routed the > /64s for you, they would only have to create a single SWIP entry for the /48, > and the street address of your central location (or

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

As I understand it, if the ISP assigned you a /48 and individually routed the /64s for you, they would only have to create a single SWIP entry for the /48, and the street address of your central location (or your administrative HQ, if different) would be perfectly appropriate for that SWIP. I

[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

I would like to give an example of why the current /64 or more rule for IPv6 SWIP vs IPv4 is an issue for a project I am working on: I am working on a project to enable public IPv6 on Public Transit busses. Currently we have a public V4 address assigned by the winner of a State Government

[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

For the record, I would be happy if this policy stopped at changing the 100% SWIP requirement for v6 assignments to allowing /56 and smaller to not have to SWIP. However, if the community agrees, I have no issues with taking additional actions in this draft, up to and including elimination of

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On 7/18/17 22:23, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Jul 17, 2017, at 16:36 , John Curran wrote: >>> What I would like to know is my gut feeling correct, which is that after >>> receiving an allocation of IPv6, nearly nobody ever returns to the well for >>> more, or at least not

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:24 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > > > On Jul 17, 2017, at 16:36 , John Curran wrote: > > > > Albert - > > > > We’ll research into these questions and report back shortly. > > > > Thanks! > > /John > > > >> On 17 Jul 2017, at 2:53 PM,

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6)

It looks to me like as far as using SWIP as a tool to track IPv6 assignments so that we know if they have reached the 75% mark to ask for more, this is not happening. As reported, NOONE has come back to ARIN at this time for more IPv6 space because they have exhausted their initital

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Albert - We’ll research into these questions and report back shortly. Thanks! /John > On 17 Jul 2017, at 2:53 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > Just a couple of questions regarding the carrots and the sticks for the ARIN > staff: > > Other than those who came back to change their

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 7:02 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Paul McNary wrote: > >> I would prefer to give my residential users a /48 for the future but a /56 >> > Hi Paul, > > This is acceptable under current ARIN policy and

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Paul McNary wrote: > I would prefer to give my residential users a /48 for the future but a /56 > Hi Paul, This is acceptable under current ARIN policy and would remain so under variant of the policy currently under discussion. > could

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

+1 That is what I agree with. However reading the ARIN reassignment web page they are showing policy that /60 should be SWIP'ed on IPv6 and /29 on IPv4. Thanks you Paul On 7/17/2017 5:46 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: The language of "b)" actually makes more sense with a /47: Each static

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

The language of "b)" actually makes more sense with a /47: Each static IPv6 assignment containing a /47 or more addresses, or subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced, shall be registered in the WHOIS directory via SWIP or a distributed service which meets the standards

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Leif If I understand your question: Originally /48 to anyone was the BCP for future efficiency. I can change my BCP to /56. /48 is my preference, however, which is the BGP boundary. Otherwise I have little issue with choice "b" if forced. I would prefer to give my residential users a /48 for

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Shepherd of the draft policy chiming in. Thanks for the lively discussion, everybody. There's certainly a lot to think about here. Just as a reminder to folk, the current policy under question is located here: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six551 And, to help clarify some confusion,

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Just a couple of questions regarding the carrots and the sticks for the ARIN staff: Other than those who came back to change their initial /35 to a /32, how many ARIN customers have come back for another allocation of IPv6 space because they used the first one to the extent the rules require,

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On 17 Jul 2017, at 2:25 PM, Tony Hain > wrote: John, I think we are in violent agreement here, other than the ARIN membership is the wrong venue (not broad enough to encompass the appropriate community) for the base statement that SWIP data must

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

discussion belongs in another venue. Tony *From:*John Curran [mailto:jcur...@arin.net] *Sent:* Monday, July 17, 2017 12:25 PM *To:* Tony Hain *Cc:* arin-ppml@arin.net *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

. That said, this whole paragraph, and most of the current discussion belongs in another venue. Tony From: John Curran [mailto:jcur...@arin.net] Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 12:25 PM To: Tony Hain Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:11 PM, David R Huberman wrote: > > Can you define voluntary? >> >> Is the voluntary choice to record a reassignment >> up to the USP? >> >> Or does the choice belong to the end-user? >> > > I think that's a business decision the two parties make

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

I have too many roles and job-titles, so below is my opinion only (as I'm at lunch right now) My 2c. As a residential customer with IPv6: There are many valid reasons not to expose individual residential customer addresses. For example someone being stalked or harassed by an ex. If their

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On 17 Jul 2017, at 11:53 AM, Paul McNary wrote: > > >> Compliance with registry policy is indeed necessary to receive number >> resources; >> it is up to you to determine whether IP number resources are necessary for >> provision >> of your Internet services. > > But

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 01:04:26AM -0400, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > John, > > I think this is the FCC ruling he speaks of, and it does seem to shut down > public disclosures of most of what is contained in SWIP/WHOIS without > customer consent. This has been the rule for regular phone

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On 17 Jul 2017, at 11:20 AM, Tony Hain > wrote: John, So you are OK with a policy that says ARIN is required to revoke address space if other ISP’s choose to accept it into the routing table, but there is no SWIP for it? To me that says you are

  1   2   >