[arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
David Farmer
farmer at umn.edu
Thu Aug 17 12:53:23 EDT 2017
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 addresses, shall be registered, as
described in section 6.5.5.1.
I'd like us to think about adding an additional section, based on previous
discussions.
6.5.5.5 Re-allocation to ISPs
Each IPv6 re-allocation to a downstream ISP, regardless of size, intended
for further assignment by the downstream ISP's to it's customers, shall be
registered, as described in section 6.5.5.1
Also, in Section 6.5.5.2 there is a reference to section 4.2.3.7.1. I think
this is a cut and past error, I think the reference should be to 6.5.5.1.
Please, compare sections 4.2.3.7.1 and 4.2.3.7.2 with sections 6.5.5.1 and
6.5.5.2 and I think it is obvious what happened.
Thanks.
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:10 AM, <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:
> 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 publishing of that static assignment in ARIN's
> registration database, the ISP must register that static assignment."
>
> Since "static assignment" is the term in this section, not netblock, I
> suggest using this term instead of "netblock". "Of any size" is not
> needed, as the language would require the ISP to register in total whatever
> size the ISP has assigned to the downstream in the ARIN database if
> requested by the downstream recipient, as long as it was /64 or more.
>
> This language would also prevent requests to register only part of an
> assignment. I think this language works in making the intent of the new
> section more clear.
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, John Santos wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170817/d2a719e7/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list