[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
theone at uneedus.com
theone at uneedus.com
Wed Jul 12 04:20:27 EDT 2017
I would like to give an example of why the current /64 or more rule for
IPv6 SWIP vs IPv4 is an issue for a project I am working on:
I am working on a project to enable public IPv6 on Public Transit busses.
Currently we have a public V4 address assigned by the winner of a State
Government Contract with a major wireless provider used for each bus in
the fleet, which is in excess of 1000 busses. Originally we used this
connection only for administrative use, such as communicating the real
time location of each bus back to headquarters and access to cameras and
reporting in an emergency. In the last few months, we added an additional
RFC1918 IPv4 private address subnet so that a wireless access point for
public wifi is available on each bus. In order to address the
administrative equipment from headquarters, we must have a static address
to connect to.
Because it is a State Government contract, the major wireless provider
still has to provide us public, static IPv4 addresses until the end of
this contract, which is Sept 30, 2018. This major provider has publiclly
announced that they will no longer provide Static IPv4 addresses to
anyone, and we have been told they will not bid on the next contract if
that contract would require an option to assign static v4 addresses like
the current contract, as they are leasing the IPv4 addresses we are using.
We have been told if we want Static assignments, they now must be only
IPv6, and they will provide up to a /56 for each bus out of a /48 of their
space assigned to all our busses.
Thus, there is a plan to put the administrative parts of the busses onto
IPv6 before the end of the contract. We wont care if the carrier v4
address is static, public, or even CGnat, as it would then only be only
used for the public v4 wifi. We might also consider a PI v6 allocation
from ARIN if they will route it to us. This would keep us from having to
renumber if the State Contract provider changes, and a /48 of space would
be plenty for all v6 use.
Here is the SWIP issue:
The major provider according to the current rules must SWIP each static
"Serving site"(NRPM 2.14), which in this case is a transit bus. Each bus
is its own account with the wireless provider, and will have its own
static IPv6 network and IPv4 address assigned.
NRPM 2.12 requires each SWIP entry must contain Street Address, City,
State, and Zip Code. How can I give a Street Address for a mobile serving
site as required by NPRM 2.12? Each bus covers 200-300 miles a day, and
about 1/2 do not return to our central location during any portion of
their daily trips. I am sure that the abuse address for the SWIP will
attract attention because of public wifi on each bus, and our intent to
enable v6 connections on each "Serving Site" (Transit Bus) including the
public wifi.
If the current proposal at more than a /60, or a greater amount such as
more than a /56 is adopted, the wireless provider no longer has to SWIP
each site (Transit Bus) just like v4. This would allow us to avoid having
to SWIP each "Serving Site" as the current IPv6 rules would require and
keep us legal with the policy manual.
If the community comes out against relaxing the IPv6 SWIP rules, my only
other choices are to hope the wireless provider will ignore the NRPM, or
write another proposal to add language to 2.12 to allow mobile "Serving
Sites" to be registered to a central location to avoid the street address
and city problem with mobile "Serving Sites". The wireless provider is
unlikely to allow all the busses to be SWIP'ed to the Central site because
they would be the one trying to explain to ARIN why 1000 networks are all
registered at the same location.
This was never an issue with IPv4, as each bus has only one IPv4 address,
which did not trigger any SWIP requirement. This example also shows how
the different treatment of v4 and v6 affects small users of v6.
I Would love to hear some input as to the issue of dealing with "Serving
Sites" that are mobile (like Transit Busses), or do not have a street
address assigned, like some of the rural WISP sites I work with including
my own home. If I decided to put a non residental circuit there that
includes any amount of IPv6, it would not be able to be SWIP'ed as I have
no Street Address and the rules do not allow the field to be left blank.
What then???
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list