[arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
John Santos
john at egh.com
Tue Aug 15 16:14:40 EDT 2017
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 wording that would make this clearer.
Three ranges:
1. smaller than /64: shouldn't be issued, can't be registered.
2. /64 through /48: register at recipient's request
3. /47 or larger: must be registered
I agree on dynamic assignments
Otherwise, I think this is a much clearer and better update to the
proposed policy, and can't find any other reason not to support it.
(I.E. this is a tentative vote FOR, if there is such a thing.)
On 8/15/2017 3:59 PM, 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 other, or some qualification on "regardless of size" statement. I
> think it is a good idea to not require registration of less than a
> /64. But the current language seems contradictory, and therefore
> confusing, my recommendation is delete "regardless of size", from the
> sentence and leaving "a /64 or more addresses". I pretty sure we
> don't want people having an expectation that they can request the
> registration of "their" /128 address.
>
> 2. Also in 3) below; It would seem to require even dynamic assignments
> be registered if requested, I don't think that is our intent either,
> section 6.5.5.1 starts with "Each static IPv6 assignment containing",
> this needs a similar qualification.
>
> Also, I'm fine with the deltas in the policy statement but it would be
> helpful to see the final resulting policy block, maybe in a separate
> email so we can all see how the result reads.
>
> Thanks, I think we are getting close, maybe one or two more turns of
> the crank.
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:06 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net
> <mailto:info at arin.net>> wrote:
>
> The following has been revised:
>
> * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment
> Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
>
> Revised text is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html
> <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html>
>
> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC
> will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of
> this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number
> resource policy as stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP).
> Specifically, these principles are:
>
> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
> * Technically Sound
> * Supported by the Community
>
> The PDP can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
> <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
> <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html>
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> Current ARIN policy has different WHOIS directory registration
> requirements for IPv4 vs IPv6 address assignments. IPv4
> registration is triggered for an assignment of any address block
> equal to or greater than a /29 (i.e., eight IPv4 addresses). In
> the case of IPv6, registration occurs for an assignment of any
> block equal to or greater than a /64, which constitutes one entire
> IPv6 subnet and is the minimum block size for an allocation.
> Accordingly, there is a significant disparity between IPv4 and
> IPv6 WHOIS registration thresholds in the case of assignments,
> resulting in more work in the case of IPv6 than is the case for
> IPv4. There is no technical or policy rationale for the disparity,
> which could serve as a deterrent to more rapid IPv6 adoption. The
> purpose of this proposal is to eliminate the disparity and
> corresponding adverse consequences.
>
> 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 subdelegation of any size that will be individually
> announced,"
>
> and
>
> 2) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the
> NRPM by deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks"
>
> and
>
> 3) Add new section 6.5.5.4 "Downstream Registration Requests" to
> the NRPM that reads "If the downstream recipient of a netblock ( a
> /64 or more addresses) requests publishing in ARIN's registration
> database, the ISP must register the netblock, regardless of size."
>
> Comments:
>
> a. Timetable for implementation: Policy should be adopted as
> soon as possible.
>
> b. Anything else:
>
> Author Comments:
>
> IPv6 should not be more burdensome than the equivalent IPv4
> network size. Currently, assignments of /29 or more of IPv4 space
> (8 addresses) require registration. The greatest majority of ISP
> customers who have assignments of IPv4 space are of a single IPv4
> address which do not trigger any ARIN registration requirement
> when using IPv4. This is NOT true when these same exact customers
> use IPv6, as assignments of /64 or more of IPv6 space require
> registration. Beginning with RFC 3177, it has been standard
> practice to assign a minimum assignment of /64 to every customer
> end user site, and less is never used. This means that ALL IPv6
> assignments, including those customers that only use a single IPv4
> address must be registered with ARIN if they are given the minimum
> assignment of /64 of IPv6 space. This additional effort may
> prevent ISP's from giving IPv6 addresses because of the additional
> expense of registering those addresses with ARIN, which is not
> required for IPv4. The administrative burden of 100% customer
> registration of IPv6 customers is unreasonable, when such is not
> required for those customers receiving only IPv4 connections.
>
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170815/99f91573/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list