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

[Roberts, Orin]

Hello all,

I am avidly following this discussion and based on my daily observances (daily swips /subnets ), I would say Andy is closest to being practical.

Leave the IPv4 /29 requirements alone, THIS LIMIT IS ALREADY BEING PUSHED AT DAILY BY NON-RESIDENTIAL USERS and only the vague ARIN policy prevents total chaos.

With regards to IPv6, I would recommend ANY USER/ENTITY/ORG that requests a /56 OR LARGER NETWORK assignment be swiped.

That would still leave /60 to /64 assignments as minimum assignment or for dynamic usage for either residential or other usage.




Orin Roberts - IP PROVISIONING
Bell Canada




From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Hadenfeldt, Andrew C
Sent: May-29-17 11:56 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Oppose as written, +1 on the points below (leave /29 alone, and would prefer to see /56 rather than /60)

-Andy

From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 2:02 PM
To: ARIN <info at arin.net>
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, 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/>
This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments.