[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21
3johnl at gmail.com
Sun Jul 23 23:35:47 EDT 2017
Are we energetically agreeing? You scared me there for a second. /48s are
excluded, unless they are part of a "subdelegation of any size that will be
individually announced". Yes.
How is that defined by the way? Will be individually announced in 2 years,
2 days, right now?
On another matter, this problem statement has been making me uneasy all
along, but because it was only required to be clear and in scope to be
accepted as Draft Policy, it was not appropriate for me to object. This
seems like as good a time as any to address some concerns, which are my
"Current ARIN policy has different WHOIS directory registration
requirements for IPv4 vs IPv6 address assignments."
This is a correct statement! It is not a problem however, nor is it
sufficient motive for trying to solve a problem, per se.
"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,"
Two facts. The second is undoubtedly a great pity, but to entangle these
logically is a fallacy of inconsistency, specifically a false equivalence.
These two facts are unrelated. It does not help the case to try to make
them interdependent. And it is not needed. All that is being attempted is
to modify V6 SWIP requirements. Do that. And DO NOT settle on 8 subnets.
"which constitutes one entire IPv6 subnet and is the minimum block size for
I think I'm looking at current text. How did this make it this far? One
ENTIRE IPV6 subnet? There are lots of entire V6 subnets all the way from /0
to /128. What does that have to do with anything? And, yeah, the SWIP
boundary being the so called "minimum" allocation seems broken, but that is
its own thing.
"There is no technical or policy rationale for the disparity, which could
serve as a deterrent to more rapid IPv6 adoption."
Possibly true, but irrelevant. There is no technical or policy rationale
for them being alike either, nor is there any reason to suppose that if
they were, folks would adopt V6 faster. SWIPing /64 is definitely wrong for
V6. Concentrate on that. We can make policy for V6 without needing to refer
"The purpose of this proposal is to eliminate the disparity and
corresponding adverse consequences."
With respect, it is not. The disparity does not qualify as a logical
motive. The brokenness of SWIPing /64s does not require injustice and if
/64 SWIPing is a deterrent to V6 adoption, that is its own good and
sufficient reason. If you had to refer to an analogy, you could say,
"SWIPing /64s is analogous to SWIPing /32s and that seems dumb".
So all you need is:
Problem Statement: SWIPing IPV6 /64s is the problem. The purpose of this
proposal is to pick a different number.
1) Alter section 22.214.171.124 "Reassignment information" of the NRPM to
strike "/64 or more addresses" and change to "/47 or more addresses, or
subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced,"
2) Alter section 126.96.36.199.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the
NRPM by deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks"
BUT. These observations do not appear to have any effect one way or the
other on the policy text. To me, picking a different number does not have
anything to do with disparity, but so what? Changing the IPV6 SWIP
threshold is not unfair and partial if someone makes unfounded assertions
regarding linkages between v4 and V6. And it is not technically unsound to
make fallacious observations if they are kind of orthogonal to the meat of
So, still support. I'd rather see it simpler, but I guess I can tolerate a
little hand waving.
Writing solely on my own behalf,
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> 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.
> 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:
>> 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 188.8.131.52 "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,"
>> 2) Alter section 184.108.40.206.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the
>> NRPM by deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks"
>> 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
>> 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.
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML