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

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

After seeing the vast majority of commenters agreeing to /56, I am 
changing my vote from any level stated to more than a /56.

As the author of the Draft, I have been following the comments.  With my 
vote, /56 has 11 votes.  There are also 2 people who are in agreement with 
any of the expressed levels.

A /48 is the minimum size routable on the internet, so I have counted the 
comment below as "more than a /52", making two votes for /52.  Other votes 
are two people for /60, and one for changing it to /61, a non nibble 
boundary.  Everyone seems to agree that any /48 should be SWIP'ed, as this 
size can be individually routed.

Therefore, I am in favor of changing the "/60" in the draft to a "/56".

There has been some comments about SWIP, and abuse contacts.  I note that:

1) The main block holder will always be the POC for anything not in SWIP.

2) If for example, a /48 block is assigned to a dhcpv6 server for prefix 
delegation of /56's to dynamic users, this block is still required to be 
registered in SWIP, as /48 is larger than /56.  However this is just one 
record for the entire pool, not one per EVERY customer as is the current 
SWIP requirement of /64 or more, and the policy I seek to change.

3) Customers receiving an assignment larger than a /56 will also be 
required to be SWIP'ed.  This does not change at all.

The only thing that really changes is that small network customers, that 
currently receive just a single IPv4 address, will be able to receive a 
/56, /60 or /64 address block of v6 for their use without an individual 
SWIP requirement, exactly as they can now receive a single IPv4 assignment 
without an individual SWIP. With v4, only the dynamic pool of v4 addresses 
is required to be SWIP'ed, not the individual small customer.  I seek to 
do the same for v6.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.


On Tue, 6 Jun 2017, Paul McNary wrote:

> I think the SWIP requirement should be the same as what is routable internet 
> wide.
> /24 for IPV4 and whatever for IPV6. Anything less is the /24 holder's problem 
> to deal with.
> If it is public routable then require SWIP otherwise let the routable holder 
> manage it.
> Blacklists deal with it that way. Every had a /25 that the other associated 
> /25 had spammers on it?
> Lots of fun! :-)
> Now if the blacklist characters would work with the smaller IP ranges that 
> would be great, but will they?
>
> Paul McNary
> pmcnary at cameron.net
>
>
> On 6/6/2017 3:10 PM, Roberts, Orin wrote:
>> 
>> /“Since we require SWIP for IPv4 /24s”///
>> 
>> ARIN also currently requires a SWIP for an IPv4 /29 , which makes  “/60" 
>> a more applicable reference point; unless the intent is to minimize or 
>> eliminate SWIPs for IPv6 (ISPs won’t mind).
>> 
>> Orin
>> 
>> *From:*ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On Behalf Of *William 
>> Herrin
>> *Sent:* June-06-17 3:04 PM
>> *To:* Leif Sawyer
>> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of 
>> Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Leif Sawyer <lsawyer at gci.com 
>> <mailto:lsawyer at gci.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     The boundaries at /60, /56, and /48  have all been discussed.  If
>>     one is more favorable than
>>     the other, and you would like to see the proposal edited to use
>>     that one, we will certainly
>>     take that under advisory.
>> 
>> Hi Leif,
>> 
>> IMHO, IPv6 /48 = IPv4 /24. Since we require SWIP for IPv4 /24s, we should 
>> require it for IPv6 /48s.
>> 
>> I'd be comfortable with "more than a /56" and "more than a /60." I prefer 
>> "more than a /56."
>> 
>> I would oppose "/60 or more" or "/56 or more" because I believe that would 
>> encourage ISPs to engage in unhealthy assignment practices to avoid SWIP 
>> reporting, such as assigning /64s, /61s and /57s.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Bill Herrin
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com 
>> <mailto:herrin at dirtside.com> bill at herrin.us <mailto:bill at herrin.us>
>> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
>