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

Tony Hain alh-ietf at tndh.net
Mon Jul 17 14:20:16 EDT 2017


John,

 

So you are OK with a policy that says ARIN is required to revoke address space if other ISP’s choose to accept it into the routing table, but there is no SWIP for it? To me that says you are making a statement about “how things are routed” by requiring a database entry before it gets accepted into routing.

 

I have no problem with a BCP to the effect that the data SHOULD exist, but as a policy this has ARIN stomping right on the line it claims to avoid.

 

Tony

 

 

From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] 
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 5:53 AM
To: Tony Hain
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

 

Tony -  

 

To be clear, ARIN’s Internet number resource policy has historically avoided  

statements that direct or forbid routing of IP address blocks, as ARIN’s role

as a Internet number registry is distinct from any role in administration of the 

Internet’s routing system. 

 

Such a separation doesn’t preclude the community from adopting policy which

references the present or future state of routing (note, for example, the use of

“multihoming” criteria in several portions of the NRPM), but folks are reminded

that in Internet number resource policy we should only be specifying how the 

ARIN registry is to be administered, not how things are to be routed, since the 

latter is up to each ISP. 

 

Thanks!

/John

 

John Curran

President and CEO

ARIN

 

On 14 Jul 2017, at 9:25 PM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net> wrote:

 

David,

 

While I totally agree with your reasoning, doesn’t that fly in the face of the policy that Arin says “nothing about routing”? It is one thing to have a BCP stating expectations for being able to find a contact for a routing entry, it is another to have a “policy” that a routing entry requires swiped contact info. 

 

Tony

 

 

From: David Farmer [ <mailto:farmer at umn.edu> mailto:farmer at umn.edu] 
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 2:58 PM
To: Tony Hain
Cc: William Herrin; Owen DeLong;  <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

 

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.

 

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.

 

Thanks.

 

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Tony Hain < <mailto:alh-ietf at tndh.net> 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: <mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 3:12 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc:  <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> 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 < <mailto:owen at delong.com> 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 ................  <mailto:herrin at dirtside.com> herrin at dirtside.com   <mailto:bill at herrin.us> 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 ( <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net> 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  <mailto:info at arin.net> info at arin.net if you experience any issues.





 

-- 

===============================================
David Farmer                <mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu> Email:farmer 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
=============================================== 

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ( <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net> 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  <mailto:info at arin.net> info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170717/9a3f88f2/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list