[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
hostmaster at uneedus.com
hostmaster at uneedus.com
Mon Jul 17 13:03:02 EDT 2017
I see the 2 proposals as quite a bit different.
The first suggestion of SWIP business users, and not residential users I
do not see as best. I would venture that for business, a numeric majority
of these customers have only a single IPv4 address. Since these mostly
small businesses are really no different network wise than residences, why
should an ISP have to waste resources registering SWIP, just because they
happened to think of the future and provided an assignment of v6 space to
their customers? Under v4 no SWIP unless they reach 8 IPv4's.
The second suggestion is more reasonable, which is to only require SWIP if
that v6 space appears alone in the GRT. Setting the standard at "/55 or
more" effectively means that those with assignments smaller than can be
advertised in the GRT do not have to SWIP. "/48 or more" would do the
same thing, but allow the customers a larger v6 block. Maybe the operative
phrase to the proposal could be something like "/48 or more, unless the
assignment does not appear in the Global Routing Table". This would do
exactly what is suggested.
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, Jason Schiller wrote:
> I am replying to bring the conversation to one of the suggestions
> on the table.
> Owen DeLong's suggesting of SWIP all IPv6 business users, and
> not Residential users,
> Or Kevin Blumberg (and David Farmer) suggestion of SWIP'ing all
> prefixes that might show up as a more specific in the global routing
> These are roughly the same result, and have a question of which
> has a more easily understandable policy.
> The question is who here supports one or both of these
> Who oppose one (if so which one) or both of these proposals?
> I would like to suggest one friendly amendment...
> - ISPs are required to SWIP IP space that is a reallocation.
> - ISPs are required to SWIP IP space that is a reassignment
> whenever that down stream customer requests such. That
> SWIP must be a reassign detail, reassign simple, or a
> residential privacy (if applicable) per the customer request.
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:42 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On 17 Jul 2017, at 9:47 AM, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>>> This is the problem. ARIN is not a carrier. While disclosure to ARIN
>> to obtain number resources for the connection is OK, Public disclosure by
>> or at the direction of ARIN policy of elements like domain name, name,
>> address and telephone number is not. Since name, address, telephone number
>> and domain name have already been identified have been defined in the order
>> as elements of CPNI that are protected, world disclosure by ARIN or because
>> of ARIN rules would not be a protected disclosure.
>>> The ISP might also be in trouble for providing the information to ARIN,
>> if they know that ARIN intends to publish this information in a public
>> directory, rather than disclosing it to ARIN solely to maintain number
>> resources. As suggested by the OP, might have to call them customer 1-n.
>> However that would violate the NRPM as written. Since the City, State and
>> Zip Code are part of the address, even the "protected" residential records
>> CPNI are being disclosed in violation of the CPNI Order.
>>> There is a big difference between disclosure to ARIN for taking care of
>> numbering policy, and disclosure to the entire world. Third party
>> disclosure is the main thing that the CPNI rules are intended to address.
>> That is only permitted when it is needed for the provision of service.
>> Compliance with registry policy is indeed necessary to receive number
>> it is up to you to determine whether IP number resources are necessary for
>> of your Internet services.
>> If you choose not to make use of Internet Numbers Registry System
>> resources for
>> provision of Internet services (or not assign them to your customers),
>> then that is
>> your choice. Some ISPs may feel that it is necessary to seek consent of
>> who wish to have public IP number resources assigned in the size that
>> would result in
>> their publication in the public registry, whereas others may not based on
>> their reading
>> of applicable regulations regarding handling of CPNI information. Such
>> choices are
>> an operational and business matter left to each ISP to decide based on
>> their individual
>> understanding and circumstances.
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
More information about the ARIN-PPML