[arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

John Santos john at egh.com
Wed Aug 16 22:38:38 EDT 2017

Your wording is simpler and better. Just saying "static" and "/64 or 
more" clarifies all the ambiguous situations.

Unless someone has a good argument why a recipient would only want part 
of their assignment registered, that seems to be a non-issue.  In any 
case, in such an event, the ISP could always issue two assignments, and 
only register one of them to the recipient, retaining the other one as 
registered to the ISP, like any other small assignment would be by 
default.  (They would probably charge more for this service, but that's 
not ARIN's department :-) )

I support.

On 8/16/2017 7:10 AM, 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 "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 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list