[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-5

Rudolph Daniel rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Wed Aug 30 14:04:46 EDT 2017


In support of the new policy wording re: swip requirements.
 https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html


Rudi Daniel



On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:16 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>         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
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         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: ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy (Mike Burns)
>    2. Re: ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy (Andrew Sullivan)
>    3. Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - August 2017 (ARIN)
>    4. Re: Revised/Retitled: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6
>       Registration Requirements (hostmaster at uneedus.com)
>    5. Re: Revised/Retitled: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6
>       Registration Requirements (Jason Schiller)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:14:33 -0400
> From: "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com>
> To: "'Owen DeLong'" <owen at delong.com>
> Cc: "'Rudolph Daniel'" <rudi.daniel at gmail.com>, <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy
> Message-ID: <001e01d32029$802458d0$806d0a70$@iptrading.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Let?s not. This is a really bad idea and if we don?t put a stop to it now,
> it will likely never get corrected.
>
>
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Owen,
>
>
>
> In almost 5 years of inter-regional transfers, David Farmer identified two
> transfers of /22s from ARIN into a one-way situation.
>
>
>
> At this rate, if it doesn?t ?get corrected?, in just 32 years a whole ARIN
> /16 will have disappeared!
>
> Not really that bad.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, blocking all transfers to APNIC *is* a really bad idea,
> as is strong-arming that registry *again* through the threat of preventing
> access to ARIN address space.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/
> attachments/20170828/902e6e0c/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:51:58 -0400
> From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy
> Message-ID: <20170828185158.pdu5pp4zjwgn7ijy at mx4.yitter.info>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 02:14:33PM -0400, Mike Burns wrote:
> > Let?s not. This is a really bad idea and if we don?t put a stop to it
> now, it will likely never get corrected.
>
> What exactly needs to get corrected, then?  You are arguing from a
> slippery slope, but nobody seems to be slipping.
>
> A
>
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:20:53 -0400
> From: ARIN <info at arin.net>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - August
>         2017
> Message-ID: <2ae92228-c1ad-6d03-5a37-15e08573b72b at arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> > The AC has abandoned the following Draft Policy:
> >
> > ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks
> >
> > The AC provided the following statement:
> >
> > "The ARIN Advisory Council has chosen to abandon Policy Proposal 2017-2,
> "Removal of Community Networks," due to lack of community support and the
> introduction of an alternative policy proposal to amend the definition of
> "community network."
> >
> > Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The
> deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's
> draft meeting minutes are published.
>
> >
> > The AC has abandoned the following Draft Policy:
> >
> > ARIN-2017-7: Retire Obsolete Section 4 from the NRPM
> >
> > The AC provided the following statement:
> >
> > "The ARIN Advisory Council has chosen to abandon Policy Proposal 2017-7,
> ?Retire Obsolete Section 4 from the NRPM?. This proposal did not gain
> sufficient community support to justify continuing to move this policy
> forward, and as such, we have requested that the policy be abandoned."
> >
> > Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The
> deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's
> draft meeting minutes are published.
>
>
> The minutes from the ARIN Advisory Council's 17 August 2017 meeting have
> been published:
>
> https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/ac2017_0817.html
>
> The petition deadline for both Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2 and Draft Policy
> ARIN-2017-7 is 3 September 2017 (in five calendar days).
>
> For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP
> Petitions at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Advisory Council Meeting Results - August 2017
> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:38:43 -0400
> From: ARIN <info at arin.net>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> In accordance with the Policy Development Process (PDP), the Advisory
> Council (AC) met on 17 August 2017.
>
>
>
> The AC has abandoned the following Draft Policy:
>
> ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks
>
> The AC provided the following statement:
>
> "The ARIN Advisory Council has chosen to abandon Policy Proposal 2017-2,
> "Removal of Community Networks," due to lack of community support and
> the introduction of an alternative policy proposal to amend the
> definition of "community network."
>
> Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The
> deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's
> draft meeting minutes are published.
>
>
>
> The AC has abandoned the following Draft Policy:
>
> ARIN-2017-7: Retire Obsolete Section 4 from the NRPM
>
> The AC provided the following statement:
>
> "The ARIN Advisory Council has chosen to abandon Policy Proposal 2017-7,
> ?Retire Obsolete Section 4 from the NRPM?. This proposal did not gain
> sufficient community support to justify continuing to move this policy
> forward, and as such, we have requested that the policy be abandoned."
>
> Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may initiate a petition. The
> deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's
> draft meeting minutes are published.
>
>
>
> The AC has advanced the following Proposal to Draft Policy status (will
> be posted separately for discussion):
>
> ARIN-prop-243: Amend the Definition of Community Network
>
> The AC advances Proposals to Draft Policy status once they are found to
> be within the scope of the PDP, and contain a clear problem statement
> and suggested changes to Internet number resource policy text.
>
>
>
> The AC is continuing to work on:
>
> * ARIN-2017-3: Update to NPRM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation
> * ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers
> * ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
> * ARIN-2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers
>
> The PDP can be found at:
> 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
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 21:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> From: hostmaster at uneedus.com
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised/Retitled: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
>         Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1708292059250.12663 at localhost.localdomain>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> I think we got it this time.
>
> I support.
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, ARIN wrote:
>
> > The following has been revised:
> >
> > * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
> >
> > Revised text is below and can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html
> >
> > Note that the Draft Policy title has changed from "Equalization of
> Assignment
> > Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6"
> >
> > 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
> >
> > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Sean Hopkins
> > Policy Analyst
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
> >
> >
> > Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
> >
> > 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 6.5.5.2. "Assignments visible within 7 days" of the
> NRPM to
> > strike the text "4.2.3.7.1" and change to "6.5.5.1"
> >
> > and
> >
> > 3) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the NRPM by
> > deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks"
> >
> > and
> >
> > 4) Add new section 6.5.5.4  "Registration Requested by Recipient" of the
> > NRPM, to read: "If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of
> /64 or
> > more addresses requests publishing of that assignment in ARIN's
> registration
> > database, the ISP must register that assignment as described in section
> > 6.5.5.1."
> >
> > 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:15:41 -0400
> From: Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
> To: hostmaster at uneedus.com
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised/Retitled: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
>         Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
> Message-ID:
>         <CAC4yj2VHVaLzjyLxJ7+F67AL7_MaTy++FyrDUR+_6iN0y6GHzw at mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> The new policy (along with pre-existing text) will read as follows:
>
> 6.5.5.1. Reassignment information
> Each static IPv6 assignment containing a /47 or more addresses, or
> subdelegation
> of any size that will be individually announced, shall be registered in the
> WHOIS
> directory via SWIP or a distributed service which meets the standards set
> forth in section 3.2. Reassignment registrations shall include each
> client's
> organizational information, except where specifically exempted by this
> policy.
>
> 6.5.5.2. Assignments visible within 7 days
> All assignments shall be made visible as required in section 6.5.5.1 within
> seven
> calendar days of assignment.
>
> 6.5.5.3. Residential Subscribers
> 6.5.5.3.1. Residential Customer Privacy
> To maintain the privacy of their residential customers, an organization
> with downstream
> residential customers may substitute that organization's name for the
> customer's name,
> e.g. 'Private Customer - XYZ Network', and the customer's street address
> may read
> 'Private Residence'. Each private downstream residential reassignment must
> have
> accurate upstream Abuse and Technical POCs visible on the WHOIS record for
> that
> block.
>
> 6.5.5.4  Registration Requested by Recipient
> If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of /64 or more addresses
> requests
> publishing of that assignment in ARIN's registration database, the ISP must
> register
> that assignment as described in section 6.5.5.1.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:02 PM, <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:
>
> > I think we got it this time.
> >
> > I support.
> >
> > Albert Erdmann
> > Network Administrator
> > Paradise On Line Inc.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Aug 2017, ARIN wrote:
> >
> > The following has been revised:
> >>
> >> * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
> >>
> >> Revised text is below and can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html
> >>
> >> Note that the Draft Policy title has changed from "Equalization of
> >> Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6"
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Sean Hopkins
> >> Policy Analyst
> >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
> >>
> >> 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 6.5.5.2. "Assignments visible within 7 days" of the
> NRPM
> >> to strike the text "4.2.3.7.1" and change to "6.5.5.1"
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> 3) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the NRPM
> by
> >> deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks"
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> 4) Add new section 6.5.5.4  "Registration Requested by Recipient" of the
> >> NRPM, to read: "If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of
> /64
> >> or more addresses requests publishing of that assignment in ARIN's
> >> registration database, the ISP must register that assignment as
> described
> >> in section 6.5.5.1."
> >>
> >> 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.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/
> attachments/20170830/4b635cb3/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 146, Issue 25
> ******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170830/d62bde91/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list