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

're just reiterating >>>>> 6.5.5.1. >>>>> That said, we could potentially clean up 6.5.5.1 by extending "static >>>>> IPv6 assignment" >>>>> to "static IPv6 assignment, or allocation," - or something similar. >>>&g

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

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:43 PM, David Farmer wrote: > Inline. > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Leif Sawyer wrote: > >> Thanks for the feedback, David. >> > ... > I'm not sure what the point of 6.5.5.5 is - you're just reiterating >> 6.5.5.1. >> That

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

While the most recent drafts have not dealt with IPv4, in the last round there was a proposal to require registration upon request of the downstream customer of their IPv6 assignment. If we intend to provide that power to require registration for IPv6 customer assignments upon request, in

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

Both are in use in 6.5 From: ARIN-PPML [arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] on behalf of David Farmer [far...@umn.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:53 AM To: hostmas...@uneedus.com Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: E

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

> On Aug 15, 2017, at 12:59 , David Farmer wrote: > > I support what I think is the intent, but I have language/editorial nits; > > 1. In 3) below; Which is it "a /64 or more addresses" or "regardless of size" > that requires registration? I think logically we need one or the

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

pml-boun...@arin.net] on behalf of David Farmer [far...@umn.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:53 AM To: hostmas...@uneedus.com Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 [E

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

-ppml-boun...@arin.net] on behalf of David Farmer [ > far...@umn.edu] > *Sent:* Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:53 AM > *To:* hostmas...@uneedus.com > *Cc:* arin-ppml@arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: > Equalization of Assignment Registration requi

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

h are in use in 6.5 From: ARIN-PPML [arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] on behalf of David Farmer [far...@umn.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:53 AM To: hostmas...@uneedus.com Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Ass

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

August 17, 2017 8:53 AM To: hostmas...@uneedus.com Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 [External Email] Here is a slightly different formulation to consider. I refactored

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

PPML [arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] on behalf of David Farmer [far...@umn.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:53 AM To: hostmas...@uneedus.com Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 [E

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

Here is a slightly different formulation to consider. I refactored the title a little, and based the phrasing on other parts of section 6.5.5 6.5.5.4 Registration Requested by Recipient If requested by the downstream recipient of a block, each static IPv6 assignment containing a /64 or more

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

Your wording is simpler and better. Just saying "static" and "/64 or more" clarifies all the ambiguous situations. Unless someone has a good argument why a recipient would only want part of their assignment registered, that seems to be a non-issue. In any case, in such an event, the ISP

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

I'm in favor of this draft and +1 Albert's suggested language for wording changes. -- Brian ​ E Jones ​ On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:10 AM, wrote: > I am in favor of the draft, with or without the changes to make it clearer. > > I suggest the following language for

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

I am in favor of the draft, with or without the changes to make it clearer. I suggest the following language for clarity: 3) Add new section 6.5.5.4 "Downstream Registration Requests" to the NRPM that reads "If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of /64 or more addresses requests

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

” or possibly “reassigned IPv6 address blocks”. Thanks, Kevin Blumberg From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:00 PM To: ARIN <i...@arin.net> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-

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

I think that the "/64 or more addresses" and the "regardless of size" are meant to convey that any netblock between a /64 and a /48 can and should be registered if the recipient requests it, even if the block is smaller than the /47 which would make it mandatory. Perhaps there is better

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

I support what I think is the intent, but I have language/editorial nits; 1. In 3) below; Which is it "a /64 or more addresses" or "regardless of size" that requires registration? I think logically we need one or the other, or some qualification on "regardless of size" statement. I think it is

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

Concur with the above, Support the draft as written. On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote: > Agreed. While there are a wide range of opinions on where this line > belongs, The /47 line appears to have the most consensus, and has my > support. > > -Chris >

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

Agreed. While there are a wide range of opinions on where this line belongs, The /47 line appears to have the most consensus, and has my support. -Chris > On Aug 15, 2017, at 11:03 AM, David Huberman wrote: > > Very well done, everyone! Strongly support this draft. > >

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

Very well done, everyone! Strongly support this draft. Kudos to Albert Erdmann and the AC shepherds for their leadership on this proposal. > On Aug 15, 2017, at 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote: > > The following has been revised: > > * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment

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

To: ARIN Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 [External Email] It looks like /60 still needs to be changed to /56 to reflect the consensus on PPML. Or was there some reason not to do

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

It looks like /60 still needs to be changed to /56 to reflect the consensus on PPML. Or was there some reason not to do that (yet)? Scott > On Jun 7, 2017, at 11:58 AM, ARIN wrote: > > The following has been revised: > > * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment