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

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

RFC 4291, section 2.5.4 provide that the interface ID is /64 for all 
global unicast addresses, which is the reason that all v6 lan networks are 
set to /64, and this should include p2p links

Network World at the time had quite a discussion about this and RFC 6164.

They point out that we have no problems with waste when we use say 5000 
addreseses on a /64, but not with using 2 in a point to point link, 
forgetting that the difference between 5000 and 2 is nothing when there is 
18 million trillion addresses on that subnet.

It was also pointed out that using a /127 prevented certain attacks, but 
simply turning off neighbor discovery (the true issue) on these links also 
has the same effect.  Maybe someone should update that RFC. I think the 
advantages of /64 everywhere I think outweighs the value of using a /127 
p2p link.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Thu, 25 May 2017, Aaron Dudek wrote:

> I don't believe a /64 is recommended for a p2p anymore. Rfc 6164
>
> On Thursday, May 25, 2017, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','herrin at dirtside.com');>  bill at herrin.us
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','info at arin.net');> if you experience any
>>> issues.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________________
>> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jschiller at google.com');>|571-266-0006
>>
>>
>