[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6)
hostmaster at uneedus.com
hostmaster at uneedus.com
Tue Jul 18 13:26:34 EDT 2017
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: 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168, 22.214.171.124,
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".
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 Curran
> President and CEO
More information about the ARIN-PPML