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

Paul McNary pmcnary at cameron.net
Thu Aug 17 14:26:44 EDT 2017

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 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 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, since we're already in the section.
>> I've also modified the text for as well, because I think your 
>> suggesting is a little cleaner.
>> I'm not sure what the point of is -  you're just reiterating 
>> That said, we could potentially clean up 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] on behalf of David 
>> Farmer [farmer at umn.edu]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:53 AM
>> To: hostmaster at uneedus.com
>> 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
>> [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
>> 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
>> I'd like us to think about adding an additional section, based on 
>> previous discussions.
>> 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
>> Also, in Section there is a reference to section I 
>> think this is a cut and past error, I think the reference should be 
>> to Please, compare sections and with 
>> sections and 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>> 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> 
>> <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 "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<tel:781-861-0670%20ext%20539>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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<http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> 
>> 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
>> ===============================================
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list