[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

[John Springer]

I support this Draft Policy as re-written.

I shared the author's distaste for the requirement that IPV6 /64s be
SWIP'd, but was not reassured when the discussion veered to consider
prefixes between /48 and /64. AFAIK, ISPs have long been encouraged to
apply for their allocations based on the idea of assigning a /48 to each
'customer' to provide room for unknown technologies, among other things. I
did not wish to endanger that premise, but current language appears to moot
that concern.

To be explicit, to me, "/47 or more addresses, or sub-delegation of any
size that will be individually announced," refers to /47s, /46s, /45s ...
and not /48s, /49s, /50s, etc.

John Springer

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Leif Sawyer <lsawyer at gci.com> wrote:

> Happy Friday, everybody.
>
>
>
> As promised, here is the latest rewrite of the draft policy below,  and it
> will soon be updated at:
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html
>
>
>
> There are two changes noted in the policy statement: the first of which
> reflects what seems to be the current
>
> consensus of the PPML regarding netblock sizing; the second is to strike
> language that may be read as either restrictive
>
> or non-operational.
>
>
>
> ----
>
>
>
> 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 6.5.5.1 "Reassignment information" of the NRPM to
> strike "/64 or more addresses" and change to "/47 or more addresses, or
> sub-delegation of any size that will be individually announced,"
>
> and
>
>        2) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the
> NRPM by deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks"
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Leif Sawyer
>
> Advisory Council
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170721/be211b69/attachment.htm>