[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 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 "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 "Residential Customer Privacy" of the
>     NRPM by deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks"
>     and
>     3) Add new section "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-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list