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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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