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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri Jul 14 22:18:32 EDT 2017


> On Jul 14, 2017, at 14:57 , David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> 
> Rather than base it on the criteria of business vs. residential customer, how about simply basing it on the criteria, is the assignment intended to be or is used within the global routing system or not, or if the customer requests their assignment be SWIPed.  Most residential assignments be they /56 or /48 won't be in the global routing system, neither will many business assignments either, after that then an assignment is only SWIPed if the customer requests it.

I’d be fine with that, but I’ll point out it’s a much more complicated policy to express vs. the simple definition in section 2 that already exists for residential.

As you stated, both mechanisms largely capture the same set of assignments.

> My reasoning for wanting to have /48s SWIPed isn't based on business vs residential customer type, which has a fuzzy definition sometimes anyway.  Its that /48s might appear in the routing table. So just make that the criteria in the first place, if we are not going to based it on a specific size like we did in IPv4.  Also, then any policy violations become easily apparent. If an ISP doesn't SWIP some of there business customers, how are you going to know anyway?  However, if a route is in the route table and there is no SWIP that is fairly self apparent.

I’d argue that most /48s that are likely to be SWIP’d are unlikely to appear in the GRT because most of them are PA and people that want to advertise their own /48 are more likely to just pony up the $100/year to ARIN rather than get stuck in PA renumbering hell when they switch providers.

Owen

> 
> Thanks.
> 
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net <mailto:alh-ietf at tndh.net>> wrote:
> Bill,
> 
>  
> 
> To avoid the situation of Owen being a lone voice, I have to echo his point that it is insane that people persist with IPv4-think and extreme conservation. Allocations longer than a /48 to a residence ensure that automated topology configuration can’t happen, because /52’s won’t happen and /56’s are too long for random consumer plug-n-play. Therefore a policy that /48’s must be swiped ensures that we maintain single subnet consumer networks. A policy that says /48’s might be swiped (will in a business and not in a non-residential case) does not reinforce the braindead notion that longer than /48 has some special meaning beyond the need to kill off a generation of those with the ‘addresses are a scarce resource’ mindset.
> 
>  
> 
> Tony
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>   <>
> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 3:12 PM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
> 
>  
> 
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
> 
> Consensus hasn’t yet been reached. I agree that there is significant support for “shorter than /56” actually (not /56 itself). Nonetheless, I don’t believe that shorter than /56 is the ideal place to put the boundary.
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
>  
> 
> I think you're an outlier here. I see consensus that /48 should be swiped and /56 should not. If there's debate that /52 or /49 should also not be swiped or that a some more subtle criteria should determine what's swiped, it's not exactly chewing up bandwidth on the mailing list.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill Herrin
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> --
> 
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com <mailto:herrin at dirtside.com>  bill at herrin.us <mailto:bill at herrin.us>
> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/ <http://www.dirtside.com/>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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
> ===============================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170714/909bc526/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list