[arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
farmer at umn.edu
Thu Aug 17 14:43:28 EDT 2017
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Leif Sawyer <lsawyer at gci.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback, David.
> I've added the fix for 188.8.131.52, since we're already in the section.
> I've also modified the text for 184.108.40.206 as well, because I think your
> suggesting is a little cleaner.
> I'm not sure what the point of 220.127.116.11 is - you're just reiterating
> That said, we could potentially clean up 18.104.22.168 by extending "static IPv6
> to "static IPv6 assignment, or allocation," - or something similar.
ISP re-allocations need to be registered regardless of size or if it is
being advertised or not. For example, if for some stupid reason a /56 was
re-allocated to downsterm ISP so they could assign /64s to customers that
has to be registered, by 22.214.171.124 that wouldn't have to be registered.
Should you re-allocate a /56, @!@#$ NO!!! But if you did, it has to be
registered. This is so LEA and other legal requests get directly to the
correct ISP the first time. I think this is important enough issue that it
should have it's own section, and not get blended in to 126.96.36.199.
Now should that be part of this policy maybe not, maybe this belongs in
ARIN-2017-3 or whole new separate policy proposal instead.
> Which also brings to mind the question: LIR or ISP? Both are in use in
In my mind you could be called an LIR or ISP if you get addresses from ARIN
(an RIR) and assign them to others, If you get addresses from an LIR or
another ISP and assign them you are just an downstream ISP, I wouldn't call
you an LIR. But that's just me, I'm not sure there is an official answer.
> *From:* ARIN-PPML [arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] on behalf of David Farmer [
> farmer at umn.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:53 AM
> *To:* hostmaster at uneedus.com
> *Cc:* arin-ppml at 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 the
> title a little, and based the phrasing on other parts of section 6.5.5
> 188.8.131.52 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 184.108.40.206.
> I'd like us to think about adding an additional section, based on previous
> 220.127.116.11 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 18.104.22.168
> Also, in Section 22.214.171.124 there is a reference to section 126.96.36.199.1. I
> think this is a cut and past error, I think the reference should be to
> 188.8.131.52. Please, compare sections 184.108.40.206.1 and 220.127.116.11.2 with sections
> 18.104.22.168 and 22.214.171.124 and I think it is obvious what happened.
> 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
>> I suggest the following language for clarity:
>> 3) Add new section 126.96.36.199 "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
>>>> 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 188.8.131.52 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:
>>>> 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:
>>>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>>>> 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 184.108.40.206 "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
>>>> 2) Alter section 220.127.116.11.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the
>>>> NRPM by deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks"
>>>> 3) Add new section 18.104.22.168 "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."
>>>> 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
>> 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:
>> 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 <(612)%20626-0815>
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
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 <(612)%20626-0815>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML