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

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

It looks to me like as far as using SWIP as a tool to track IPv6 
assignments so that we know if they have reached the 75% mark to ask for 
more, this is not happening.  As reported, NOONE has come back to ARIN at 
this time for more IPv6 space because they have exhausted their initital 
allocation.  Thus, the need to have SWIP in IPv6 for this purpose is zero. 
Since noone is coming back for more v6, looks like that stick for doing 
SWIP is not there.

As far as recording IPv6 assignments in SWIP, it looks like that only 8.5% 
have recorded any assignments at all to date.  Even though the current 
policy for the past 6 years says /64 or more, effectively 100% 
registration required, it does not look like it is being done.

Since there is only 8.5% of the total with ANY amount of IPv6 recorded in 
SWIP, maybe this is the right time to propose that IPv6 SWIP requirements 
be eliminated in total.  As far as policy proposals go, this would be done 
with the following language:

Strike from the NRPM the following sections: 6.5.5.1, 6.5.5.2, 6.5.5.3, 
and 6.5.5.3.1.

It does not in fact appear that IPv6 SWIP has ever been used to document 
for ARIN the need for future assignments, nor does the 8.5% of the 
reassignment records make that much difference to people using SWIP for 
other reasons.  In fact, the community appears to ignored the current SWIP 
requirement that has been policy for quite a while.

This language is the way to go if we want to get rid of SWIP for IPv6. 
Otherwise, if this is not acceptable, I still suggest option "b)" from 
yesterday, with the size of "/47".

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.



On Tue, 18 Jul 2017, John Curran wrote:

> Albert -
>
> As requested –
>
> As far as ARIN staff can ascertain, no ISP/LIR has yet qualified for an additional allocation
> based on having used enough of their existing allocation to qualify for more.   There have
> been some additional allocations under other circumstance, e.g.
>
> -          Multiple Discrete Networks (I have a /32, I’m opening a second autonomous site, I need more)
> -          “Do-over” (I got a /32, I did my addressing plan, I now realize I need a /28)
> -          Downstream ISP customers (I have a /32, I have a downstream ISP customer,
>           therefore I need additional space so I can assign them a /32)
>
> Regarding reassignments:  there are 3,346 IPv6 direct allocations. Of those, 283 (8.5%) have one
> or more reassignments.  For comparison, there are 20,217 IPv4 direct allocations. Of those, 10,230
> (50.7%) have one or more reassignments.
>
> May you find this information useful in your policy development efforts!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
>
>
>