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

[Jason Schiller]

I don't support a relaxation of SWIP requirements for IPv4.

I do support updating the language for IPv4 for clarity (if that is useful).
current IPv4 language:  /29 or more

possibly re-write for clarity: more than a /30.


As far as IPv6 goes, there are some who recommend a /64 for point-to-point.
One might argue that in the context of p-t-p an IPv4 /30 maps to a /64.

I could certainly get behind SWIP requirements for "more than a /64" on
these grounds.

Please make the requirement to SWIP be on a nibble boundary.


Nibbles being nice things, one could argue that end users are likely to get
a /64
or the next size up which is a /60.  If you want to catch all customers in
the
smallest size, you might make the boundary at "more than a /61"

The next size up on the nibble boundary is a /56 putting the boundary at
"more than a /57"


Generally speaking any network that is sufficiently large to require
subnetting,
should have sufficient clue to support SWIP.  Based on this reasoning "more
than
a /64" seems like an equable place to draw the line.  Even "more than a
/61"
seems reasonable, as blocks are likely going to be assigned on nibbles.
My next preferred choice would be "more than a /57"

Also don't forget that residential users can opt out of publicly providing
information.

___Jason







On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:04 PM, <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The line has to be drawn somewhere, and the idea when I drafted this
> proposal was that it was wrong to treat IPv6 less favored than IPv6 as is
> the current case.  It also bothered me that the average residential and
> small business account would have to go thru the SWIP process, just because
> they want to have a minimum or so assignment of IPv6 space for their
> network, when this was never a requirement for IPv4.  As discussed, a /60
> of v6 is much the same as a /32 of v4.
>
> I chose 16 addresses/networks as the only reasonable number to make the
> two protocols equal. As already discussed, 1 network is too small.  If the
> community thinks it is wrong to relax the current IPv4 requirements, I am
> not opposed to removing 4.2.3.7.1 from the proposal, as long as the
> community is willing to do something about the "Register every network"
> problem that is the current policy in v6, and the changes to 6.5.5.1 that I
> propose.
>
> While I suggest that a /60 should not trigger registration, if the
> community would rather kick that up to a /56, I have no problem with this.
> This would seem to be the more future proof option. Of course such a change
> calls for a new title, maybe "New policy for IPv6 Assignment Registration",
> and cite it as allowing even the small networks with a /32 of IPv4 to
> obtain a reasonable assignment of IPv6 without registration requirements,
> as is the current case with IPv4.
>
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 23 May 2017, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:35 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration
>>> requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
>>>
>>> Policy statement:
>>>
>>> Amend 4.2.3.7.1 of the policy manual to strike "/29 or more" and change
>>> to
>>> "more than a /28".
>>>
>>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> In my opinion...
>>
>> Leave /29 alone or change it to "more than a single IP address." In these
>> days of IPv4 shortage, substantial networks sit behind small blocks of
>> public addresses. These networks should be documented with reachable POCs
>> lest the anti-spam/virus/malware folks slam down /24 filters for lack of
>> information about how misbehaving networks are partitioned.
>>
>>
>> Amend 6.5.5.1 of the policy manual to strike "/64 or more" and change to
>>> "more than a /60".
>>>
>>>
>> Change this to "more than a /56." Service providers should NOT be
>> assigning
>> /64's to end users. If you're doing that, you're doing it wrong. An IPv6
>> customer should be able to have more than one /64 subnet without resorting
>> to NAT so /60 should be the absolute minimum end-user assignment,
>> equivalent for all intents and purposes to an IPv4 /32. If we then want
>> "equivalence" to the /29 policy so that individuals with the minimum and
>> near-minimum assignment do not need to be SWIPed, it makes sense to move
>> the next subnetting level up. In IPv6, assignment is strongly recommended
>> on nibble boundaries, so that means /56.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>>
>> --
>> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  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.
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170525/06f02ac4/attachment.htm>