[arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

Jason Schiller jschiller at google.com
Thu Oct 12 09:39:26 EDT 2017


Support as written (amended with Shall).

As a follow up to Owen, clarity is important.
I urge those who do not support it as written (amended with Shall)
to also note if they would support it without the shall amendment.


Also as a separate question to supporting the proposal
is if the process is supported.

Can the PPM chair call separate questions?
Yes.

Can the Shepherd / AC make (minor) text changes after the 30 day freeze?
Yes.

Was there adequate discussion of the change on list and at the meeting?
Yes.

___Jason





On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> I’d like to request that if anyone objects to the change made in sending
> the recommended draft to last call (should->shall), they make that clear.
>
> I believe we it is likely “Support as written” will actually be
> interpreted as “Support as amended and sent to last call”.
>
> Sorry for being pedantic, but as an AC member, I’d like to make sure that
> we have the clearest possible understanding of community intent as we move
> forward.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Owen
>
> On Oct 11, 2017, at 4:25 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Support as written.
>
> -CAS
>
>
> ==============================
> *Carlton A Samuels*
>
> *Mobile: 876-818-1799 <(876)%20818-1799>Strategy, Planning, Governance,
> Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:16 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171012/ec6250bf/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list