[arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

Placing ISP/LIR in place of ISP might be the best way to avoid confusion. 
As has been pointed out, they are really one and the same.

Otherwise, I think that everything else about the draft is good and 
support.

One thing to consider for future discussion is that because of the nature 
of IPv6, and its end-to-end nature, and assignment of public addresses, 
that the difference between allocate and assign using IPv6 on a specific 
/64 segment used for public wifi or otherwise is becoming more fluid.

With SLAAC, an address is formed in part using a MAC address, which 
according to the rules for MAC addresses is supposed to be unique.  It 
could be argued that these addresses are in effect "static", which could 
be argued is an assignment of part of the host network's /64, in effect a 
static /128 of that network.  Due to the rules of SLAAC this happens 
without involvement of the host network, other than router advertisements, 
since the MAC originates from the guest device, as a different device will 
have a different MAC address.

The requirement of at least a /64 in the proposed 6.5.5.4 is good in that 
end user networks that have SLAAC cannot be required to register the /128 
associated with someones MAC address on their request.  Since this limit 
is in the proposal, I think we do not need to address the fact that end 
user networks running IPv6 and SLAAC in effect are assigning addresses to 
end user devices, even though they are not supposed to do this unless the 
addresses were allocated to them like an ISP/LIR.  Unlike DHCP6, which has 
a time limit, one could argue that SLAAC addresses are static.

Something to think about.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Owen DeLong wrote:

> I refer you to section 6.5.1…
>
> 6.5.1. Terminology
>
> The terms ISP and LIR are used interchangeably in this document and any use of either term shall be construed to include both meanings.
> The term nibble boundary shall mean a network mask which aligns on a 4-bit boundary (in slash notation, /n, where n is evenly divisible by 4, allowing unit quantities of X such that 2^n=X where n is evenly divisible by 4, such as 16, 256, 4096, etc.)
>
> While it is a little unusual to have definitions outside of section 2, these were placed here in section 6.5.1 in order to avoid potential conflicts with certain language that was in section 4 at the time of writing.
>
> Owen
>
>> On Sep 18, 2017, at 1:14 PM, John Santos <JOHN at egh.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/18/2017 10:37 AM, ARIN wrote:
>>> The following has been revised:
>>>
>>> * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
>> [snip]
>>
>>> 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 should register that assignment as described in section 6.5.5.1."
>>
>> I have been under the impression that a common goal of most people proposing NRPM changes is to eliminate the use of the term "ISP", since it is not defined in the policy and most or all the relevant sections also apply to other organizations that, while they re-allocate or reassign address space, are not, properly speaking, ISPs.  Shouldn't this says "LIR" or "provider" or some other more generic term?
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> --
>> John Santos
>> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
>> 781-861-0670 ext 539
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
>