[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy
Mike Burns
mike at iptrading.com
Wed Aug 23 10:02:31 EDT 2017
I oppose this policy, although I do understand and agree with the gut feeling expressed in this thread. For many reasons, a free and global market in IPv4 addresses, which mirrors the goal of a free and global delivery of packets, is what I think would be best. And this requires trade in all directions.
However, let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Let’s unpack that gut feeling. I think the gut could be reacting in two ways. First, there is a “balance of trade” argument, which rejects one-way trade barriers as something to be fought against. Why let our valuable commodities flow only outwards towards the world?
Second, there is the fairness issue. We all have a sense of fairness and on the face of it, this is patently unfair.
For the first argument, let me say that we have North American address owners seeking to sell, and this proposal artificially limits their ability to do that. Is it proper, and our role, to punish these North American entities? Is the correct answer to limited trade even more limited trade? And what of that trade imbalance, wouldn’t this proposal exacerbate that imbalance by precluding the sale of North American assets to swaths of the world?
For the second argument, fairness, let us regard the fairness of ipv4 distribution around the world. I know the gut feeling of some in Latin America or Asia or Africa regarding this issue of fairness would have a different expression, when they see that every North American citizen got 5 addresses and every one of them got to share a single ipv4 address with 1000 of their neighbors. Yes, for some countries the ratio is 5000:1 in our favor.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Media/Internet/IP-addresses-per-capita
RIPE, the registry which I consider most advanced in terms of IPv4 market policies, and the registry which processes the largest number of transfers, has already agreed to send addresses via a one-way policy to other RIRs.
LACNIC and AFRINIC have discussed one-way policies, and I think it is easy to understand, from their perspectives, the fear of allowing already scarce addresses to leave those regions. I have heard the fear that this would provide incentive for networks in their region to convert to CGN in order to sell their resources to the wealthy nations who already enjoy many addresses.
But the bottom line is that address flow is a result of market forces and not policy. When the supply is in one region and the demand in another, forces act as one would expect to move addresses. But when registry stewards stand athwart that flow and say “Stop! Our regard for fairness is outraged!” then, like water finds its level, addresses will find their way to those in need. The net result is things like zombie corporations changing hands, leases which are invisible to Whois, artificial pricing imbalances, and overall unpleasantness.
Let’s accept one-way transfers as a recognition of the reality of the historical artifact of address allocation, and as a step in the direction of a true global market, albeit a half-step. This proposal, on the other hand, is a step backwards. Those one-way regions are not suppliers of addresses to the market, so requiring outbound transfers from them will have no effect. On the other hand, denying needed addresses to these address-poor regions will affect them direly.
Regards,
Mike Burns
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Rudolph Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 9:15 AM
To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy
Thank you Owen, and I remember those exact words when the policy was formulated and I accept that too. Of course, the community did not, at that time see the loop hole we are currently trying to close. So I was being cautious in that whilst we can modify the wording, to achieve a close, is arin staff also confident that it can be implemented. Of course I also appreciate that what ever we as a community do, there is always some out there looking or searching for yet another loop hole.
rd
Rudi Daniel
danielcharles consulting <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com> > wrote:
It is achievable because ARIN will evaluate the policy of each RIR in this regard prior to approving the transfer.
Owen
On Aug 18, 2017, at 12:36 , Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com <mailto:rudi.daniel at gmail.com> > wrote:
" Recipient RIR policy must not permit transfers to other RIRs or NIRs whose policies do not support bi-directional transfers."
Whereas I am in support of closing this loophole, I cannot be sure that this is actually achievable...
rd
On Aug 17, 2017 6:01 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-request at arin.net> > wrote:
Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arin-ppml-request at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-request at arin.net>
You can reach the person managing the list at
arin-ppml-owner at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-owner at arin.net>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of
Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
(Paul McNary)
2. Draft Policy 2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirements for
Inter RIR Transfers (WOOD Alison * DAS)
3. Re: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of
Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
(hostmaster at uneedus.com <mailto:hostmaster at uneedus.com> )
4. Re: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of
Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
(David Farmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:49:47 -0500
From: Paul McNary <pmcnary at cameron.net <mailto:pmcnary at cameron.net> >
To: "arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> " <arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> >
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and
IPv6
Message-ID: <7460ee99-c116-7c0a-b726-2267de135596 at cameron.net <mailto:7460ee99-c116-7c0a-b726-2267de135596 at cameron.net> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Sorry I typed the numbers backwards, yes, that is what I meant. :-)
A /48 is smaller than a /47 and would not be required to be registered?
A /47 would need to be
On 8/17/2017 1:30 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
> The opposite - a /47 is 2 /48s aggregated.
>
> -C
>
>> On Aug 17, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Paul McNary <pmcnary at cameron.net <mailto:pmcnary at cameron.net> > wrote:
>>
>> A /47 is smaller than a /48 and would not be required to be registered?
>>
>>
>> On 8/17/2017 12:50 PM, hostmaster at uneedus.com <mailto:hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:
>>> I note that any ISP size reassignment, with the recommended /48 for each end user site, will be /47 or larger, which must always be registered.
>>>
>>> Thus, I think 6.5.5.5 language is unneeded, since any LIR/ISP reassignment will be large enough to already trigger registration.
>>>
>>> Under the current policy, LIR's and ISP's are equal, so usually both terms are stated in any policy that mentions them.
>>>
>>> May I also suggest that if we are going to require registration upon downstream request for IPv6, that we consider placing the same language and requirements for IPv4 customers as well? And if we do, where do we draw the minimum line? Maybe a /32....
>>>
>>> Also, good catch on the cut and paste error.....
>>>
>>> Albert Erdmann
>>> Network Administrator
>>> Paradise On Line Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Leif Sawyer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the feedback, David.
>>>>
>>>> I've added the fix for 6.5.5.2, since we're already in the section.
>>>>
>>>> I've also modified the text for 6.5.5.4 as well, because I think your suggesting is a little cleaner.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what the point of 6.5.5.5 is - you'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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which also brings to mind the question: LIR or ISP? Both are in use in 6.5....
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: ARIN-PPML [arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> ] on behalf of David Farmer [farmer at umn.edu <mailto:farmer at umn.edu> ]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:53 AM
>>>> To: hostmaster at uneedus.com <mailto:hostmaster at uneedus.com>
>>>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto: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
>>>>
>>>> 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 <mailto:hostmaster at uneedus.com> <mailto:hostmaster at uneedus.com <mailto: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> <mailto:info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> > <mailto:info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> <mailto: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>
>>>> <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>
>>>> <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>
>>>> <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 <tel:(781)%20861-0670> <tel:781-861-0670%20ext% <tel:781-861-0670%20ext%25> 20539>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PPML
>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net> <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net> >).
>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml<http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
>>>> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> <mailto:info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> > if you experience any issues.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ===============================================
>>>> David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu> <mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu <mailto:Email%253Afarmer at umn.edu> >
>>>> Networking & Telecommunication Services
>>>> Office of Information Technology
>>>> University of Minnesota
>>>> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 <tel:612-626-0815>
>>>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <tel:612-812-9952>
>>>> ===============================================
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 20:54:23 +0000
From: WOOD Alison * DAS <Alison.WOOD at oregon.gov <mailto:Alison.WOOD at oregon.gov> >
To: "arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> " <arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> >
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2017-6: Improve Reciprocity
Requirements for Inter RIR Transfers
Message-ID:
<B0CA7478A1F03F4CA96A93288751A91A01A47CF968 at WPORGEXCL10.ENTSS.OR.GOV <mailto:B0CA7478A1F03F4CA96A93288751A91A01A47CF968 at WPORGEXCL10.ENTSS.OR.GOV> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thank you for the feedback on this draft policy to date. I would appreciate any other thoughts or comments on this draft policy.
For review, Draft Policy 2017-6 is intended to add the following conditions on Inter RIR transfers to section 8.4:
Recipient RIR policy must not permit transfers to other RIRs or NIRs whose policies do not support bi-directional transfers.
And the problem statement on this draft policy is:
Currently ARIN's requirement that inter-RIR transfer policies be reciprocal has a glaring hole in it in that RIRs which have NIRs and/or a two-hop RIR transfer process can be used to circumvent the intent of the requirement. Rather than eliminate the requirement, a better approach would be to close the loophole.
All feedback is appreciated.
Thank you
-Alison Wood
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170817/22d7858b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:00:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: hostmaster at uneedus.com <mailto:hostmaster at uneedus.com>
To: "arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> " <arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> >
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and
IPv6
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1708171744310.28692 at localhost.localdomain <mailto:28692 at localhost.localdomain> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-unknown"; Format="flowed"
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 fairness we should also use the same
language in a new 4.2.3.7.4 to allow static IPv4 customers that same
power. I suggest /32 as the limit, as /29 or more already has required
registration. The same problems identfied in not being able to register
assignments with ARIN for v6 are also true for v4 assignments between
those limits.
Since both protocols are still being addressed and attempts are being
made by the draft to make v6 equal or better than v4, the title should
remain. The only thing we have done is not shift the v4 limit of /29.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
> While we???re turning the crank, can we please fix the title since IPv4
> is no longer relevant to the proposal and there???s really no
> equalization happening?
>
> Perhaps ???Improved Registration Requirements for IPv6???
>
> Owen
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 17:01:09 -0500
From: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu <mailto:farmer at umn.edu> >
To: Leif Sawyer <lsawyer at gci.com <mailto:lsawyer at gci.com> >
Cc: "hostmaster at uneedus.com <mailto:hostmaster at uneedus.com> " <hostmaster at uneedus.com <mailto:hostmaster at uneedus.com> >,
"arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> " <arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> >
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and
IPv6
Message-ID:
<CAN-Dau0+4ms_7V-=Y89ZavKp+DuWVHK932FBkFbURTB_rYybGQ at mail.gmail.com <mailto:Y89ZavKp%2BDuWVHK932FBkFbURTB_rYybGQ at mail.gmail.com> >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:43 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu <mailto:farmer at umn.edu> > wrote:
> Inline.
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Leif Sawyer <lsawyer at gci.com <mailto:lsawyer at gci.com> > 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 said, we could potentially clean up 6.5.5.1 by extending "static
>> IPv6 assignment"
>> 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 6.5.5.1 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 6.5.5.1.
>
> Now should that be part of this policy maybe not, maybe this belongs in
> ARIN-2017-3 or whole new separate policy proposal instead.
>
Thinking about this for the last couple hours I'm thinking 6.5.5.5 this
should not be part of this policy. As similar text should be added in the
IPv4 section, and this should have a somewhat different problem statement
as well.
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 <tel:612-626-0815>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <tel:612-812-9952>
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170817/7e7a2fcd/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
------------------------------
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 146, Issue 10
******************************************
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170823/70af2197/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list