[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 148, Issue 8

Rudolph Daniel rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Wed Oct 11 17:15:31 EDT 2017


+1 - Support as written.

I know +1's aren't strictly needed in Last Call, but I want to explicitly
state that I agree with the AC that sufficient consideration and discussion
was given to the "should" vs. "shall" question before and during the PPM,
and therefore I agree it is appropriate to send the policy to Last Call
(and on to the board, if no un-considered objections are raised) without
another public policy meeting/consultation.

-Scott

As Scott above.
rd

On Oct 11, 2017 3:36 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>         arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         arin-ppml-request at arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         arin-ppml-owner at arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
>       Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements (Scott Leibrand)
>    2. Re: LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
>       Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements (Gary Buhrmaster)
>    3. Re: LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
>       Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements (Christoph Blecker)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:27:37 -0700
> From: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> To: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy
>         ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
> Message-ID:
>         <CAGkMwz7-WoAz_NiFGWab0NEvCV0QvmPAd0-0rzn_
> p9W0DvQu8Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> +1 - Support as written.
>
> I know +1's aren't strictly needed in Last Call, but I want to explicitly
> state that I agree with the AC that sufficient consideration and discussion
> was given to the "should" vs. "shall" question before and during the PPM,
> and therefore I agree it is appropriate to send the policy to Last Call
> (and on to the board, if no un-considered objections are raised) without
> another public policy meeting/consultation.
>
> -Scott
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:16 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>
> > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 6 October 2017 and decided to send
> > the following to Last Call:
> >
> > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration
> > Requirements
> >
> > The AC provided the following statement to the community:
> >
> > "Based on strong community support - on both the Public Policy Mailing
> > List and in person at ARIN 40 during the policy consultation - for
> > replacing the "should" qualifier in section 6.5.5.4 with "shall", the
> > Advisory Council, after careful review and discussion, has made the
> > requested change to the text."
> >
> > Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should
> be
> > provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This Last Call period will
> > expire on 10 November 2017. After Last Call, the AC will conduct their
> Last
> > Call review.
> >
> > The full text is below and available at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
> >
> > The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Sean Hopkins
> > Policy Analyst
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
> >
> >
> > AC's Statement of Conformance with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number
> > Resource Policy:
> >
> > This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number
> > policy for easier IPv6 Registrations. The staff and legal review noted a
> > single clarification issue which has been addressed. There is ample
> support
> > for the proposal on PPML and no concerns have been raised by the
> community
> > regarding the proposal.
> >
> > 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 6.5.5.1 "Reassignment information" of the NRPM to strike
> > "assignment containing a /64 or more addresses" and change to
> > "re-allocation, reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses, or
> > subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced,?
> >
> > and
> >
> > 2) Alter section 6.5.5.2. "Assignments visible within 7 days" of the NRPM
> > to strike the text "4.2.3.7.1" and change to ?6.5.5.1"
> >
> > and
> >
> > 3) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the NRPM by
> > deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks"
> >
> > and
> >
> > 4) Add new section 6.5.5.4  "Registration Requested by Recipient" of the
> > NRPM, to read: "If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of /64
> > or more addresses requests publishing of that assignment in ARIN's
> > registration database, the ISP shall register that assignment as
> described
> > in section 6.5.5.1."
> >
> > Comments:
> >
> > 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/
> attachments/20171011/18e764af/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 19:30:29 +0000
> From: Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com>
> To: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy
>         ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
> Message-ID:
>         <CAMfXtQyFhBn6j3JiRsr-XXcPr2SDb7--uM9iaRF91a0=Mg7pqw
> @mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:16 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 6 October 2017 and decided to send
> the
> > following to Last Call:
> >
> > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration
> > Requirements
> >
> > Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period.
>
> Support as written.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:35:41 -0700
> From: Christoph Blecker <cblecker at gmail.com>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy
>         ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
> Message-ID:
>         <CADx2oGGPS6xHzJ6gXGYF==HWAPnx6f3QAndiH7Gaa8e5kZFBUQ at mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Strongly support as written.
>
> Cheers,
> Christoph
>
> On 11 October 2017 at 12:16, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>
> > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 6 October 2017 and decided to send
> > the following to Last Call:
> >
> > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration
> > Requirements
> >
> > The AC provided the following statement to the community:
> >
> > "Based on strong community support - on both the Public Policy Mailing
> > List and in person at ARIN 40 during the policy consultation - for
> > replacing the "should" qualifier in section 6.5.5.4 with "shall", the
> > Advisory Council, after careful review and discussion, has made the
> > requested change to the text."
> >
> > Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should
> be
> > provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This Last Call period will
> > expire on 10 November 2017. After Last Call, the AC will conduct their
> Last
> > Call review.
> >
> > The full text is below and available at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
> >
> > The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Sean Hopkins
> > Policy Analyst
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
> >
> >
> > AC's Statement of Conformance with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number
> > Resource Policy:
> >
> > This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number
> > policy for easier IPv6 Registrations. The staff and legal review noted a
> > single clarification issue which has been addressed. There is ample
> support
> > for the proposal on PPML and no concerns have been raised by the
> community
> > regarding the proposal.
> >
> > 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 6.5.5.1 "Reassignment information" of the NRPM to strike
> > "assignment containing a /64 or more addresses" and change to
> > "re-allocation, reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses, or
> > subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced,?
> >
> > and
> >
> > 2) Alter section 6.5.5.2. "Assignments visible within 7 days" of the NRPM
> > to strike the text "4.2.3.7.1" and change to ?6.5.5.1"
> >
> > and
> >
> > 3) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the NRPM by
> > deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks"
> >
> > and
> >
> > 4) Add new section 6.5.5.4  "Registration Requested by Recipient" of the
> > NRPM, to read: "If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of /64
> > or more addresses requests publishing of that assignment in ARIN's
> > registration database, the ISP shall register that assignment as
> described
> > in section 6.5.5.1."
> >
> > Comments:
> >
> > 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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/
> attachments/20171011/c6d3a7c0/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 148, Issue 8
> *****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20171011/778ec07c/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list