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

Tony Hain alh-ietf at tndh.net
Mon Jul 24 15:51:03 EDT 2017

While I agree with the general direction David is heading, his text is still overly complex to deal with the goal. This whole thread only requires 3 lines:


Reallocations MUST provide SWIP.

Requests by the assignee MUST provide SWIP.
Anything appearing independently in the global routing table SHOULD provide SWIP.


All the rest is noise that doesn’t add to solving any problem known to mankind, and is simply an artifact of the IPv4-think insane conservation mindset. Size is irrelevant in both protocol versions, and even if you think it is, the only time it comes up is in #3. In any case the length of #3 might change over time, and there is no reason the policy text needs to change to track it. If something is independent, no matter what it’s length is, the intent is to have accurate contact info. 


Saying anything more is trying to legislate ISP behavior, which is explicitly outside the scope of ARIN.





From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 7:03 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21


The rewrite is a pretty good step forward, and I support this policy as written, but I also would like to see some additional changes. 


The following is a summary of what I would like to see the overall policy look like, it is not in policy language but provided as list of requirement, with some additional notes, then I note what I think is missing from the current proposed policy text;



- All reallocations* MUST have a SWIP provided regardless of size.



- For prefixes shorter than /48 a SWIP MUST be provided.

- For prefixes at /48 or longer a SWIP is provided at the discretion** of the ISP, except; 

  - If requested by the end-user, then a SWIP MUST be provided, or;

  - If intended to appear in global routing table, then a SWIP SHOULD*** be provided.


*  Reallocations are made to other ISPs which then can make reassignments, for IPv6 it is RECOMMENDED that all ISPs obtain an allocation directly from ARIN, however reallocations are still permitted. Further, reallocations for prefixes /48 or longer are NOT RECOMMENDED.  SWIPs for reallocations need to be required because the abuse and other POC for the down stream ISP need to be know.


** There should be some guidance (NOT policy enforced by ARIN) to ISPs making reassignments at /48 or longer: SWIPs for business customers, especially those with information technology(IT) operations sophisticated enough to handle their own abuse and/or technical incidents, are of interest to the community. SWIPs for residential customers (individual persons) are NOT normally of interest to the community.


*** This might be more appropriate as MUST, however as ARIN does not define routing policy, therefore SHOULD seems more appropriate.


So, I think the following is missing from the current proposed policy text;


1. Any mention of reallocations, but this wasn't in the original policy either 

2. A requirement that SWIP is provided if requested by end-user

3. Guidance for SWIPs for /48 or longer, while these SWIPs aren't required, some guidance still might be useful.




On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:44 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 "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 "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.



David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu> 
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota   
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815 <tel:(612)%20626-0815> 
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <tel:(612)%20812-9952> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170724/b6d5fa85/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list