[arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
kevinb at thewire.ca
Tue Aug 15 22:04:58 EDT 2017
I agree with both of your edits.
I don’t believe either fundamentally change the current proposal, and I support the 2017-5 which a strong recommendation for those edits.
I would also add that the word netblock is not in the NRPM today and should be either “static IPv6 assignment” or possibly “reassigned IPv6 address blocks”.
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:00 PM
To: ARIN <info at arin.net>
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
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 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:
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
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.
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 announced,"
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:
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.
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:
Please contact 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>
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...
More information about the ARIN-PPML