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

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

Even though the /49, /50 ... /128 is technically covered by the "any size" 
language, for all practical purposes /48 or more is all that can be 
advertised, as nothing smaller than a /48 is contained in the GRT.

Thus, your perception that it covers only sub-delegations of /48 or more 
is correct.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Scott Leibrand wrote:

>> On Jul 21, 2017, at 8:31 PM, John Springer <3johnl at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> That's not what it says. It says /48s (or longer) should be individually SWIPped if they're going to be announced. Otherwise there's no reason for the extra clause.
>
> Blocks in the GRT need to be SWIPped to the announcing party if that's a different organization from the holder of the larger block.
>
> -Scott
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>