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

Wed Sep 27 15:26:43 EDT 2017

Leif,

Thanks for the info, but I really don't understand why the enforcement
method is
necessarily any different.  Can you explain the difference?

for example:
- Customer One is a customer or provider Z with a /48 from provider Z's PA
/32.

- Customer One then buys transit from provider X, and asked provider X to
route
their /48 from provider Z.

- Provider X refuses, saying that IP space is SWIP'd to provider Z as a /32
and
not to customer One as a /48.

- Customer One asks provider Z to reassign their /48 to their org ID.

- Provider Z never responds, refuses, etc.

- Customer One informs ARIN of provider Z's unwillingness to follow policy

On the other hand:

- Customer Two is a customer or provider Z with a /48 from provider Z's PA
/32.

- Customer Two has their own support and abuse team because they think it
is
mission critical that they are ultra responsive to abuse and outage issues.

- Customer Two asks provider Z to reassign their /48 to their org ID, which
lists their contact info.  This will enable the Internet to contact
Customer Two
an get ultra responsive support.  This is not only good service two
Customer
Two's managed content customer, but to the Internet at large and LEAs.

- Provider Z never responds, refuses, etc.

- Provider Z automatically logs abuse complaints sent to it wrt Customer
Two's
IP space.  They count the number of requests and so long as they remain
below
their AUP, do nothing.

- Customer Two informs ARIN of provider Z's unwillingness to follow policy

Thanks,

__Jason

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Leif Sawyer <lsawyer at gci.com> wrote:

> Jason -
>
>
>
>    The reason for the "should"  (as opposed to shall, or must)  is
> because, after careful consideration by staff and legal,
>
> there is no method of enforcement, by ARIN, upon the ISP to actually
> provide the registration.
>
>
>
> But leaving it in as "should"  is to hopefully provide additional guidance
> to reticent companies who receive
>
> requests from their downstreams, as to what the appropriate action is.
>
>
>
> I hope that brings some clarity to your questions, and I'll let ARIN speak
> directly and specifically to them.
>
>
>
> *From:* ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On Behalf Of *Jason
> Schiller
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 26, 2017 11:18 AM
> *To:* ARIN
> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved
> IPv6 Registration Requirements
>
>
>
> [External Email]
>
> I oppose as written.
>
>
>
> There should not be a different standard of requirement for:
>
> - re-allocation
>
> - reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses
>
> - subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced
>
>
>
> which is "shall"
>
>
>
> and Registration Requested by Recipient
>
>
>
> which is "should"
>
>
>
>
>
> I would support if they are both "shall".
>
>
>
>
>
> Can ARIN staff discuss what actions it will take if an ISP's
>
> down stream customer contacts them and explains that their
>
> ISP refuses to SWIP their reassignment to them?
>
>
>
> Will they do anything more than reach out to the ISP and tell
>
> them they "should" SWIP it?
>
>
>
> How does this course of action differ if the customer intends to
>
> route the space individually?
>
>
>
> How does this course of action differ if the customer holds other
>
> direct allocations, and or re-allocates for another provider?
>
>
>
> How does this course of action differ if the customer has down
>
> stream customers?
>
>
>
> ___Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
> wrote:
>
> current policy:
>
>
>
> 6.5.5.1. Reassignment information
>
> Each static IPv6 assignment containing a /64 or more addresses shall be
> registered in
>
> the WHOIS directory via SWIP or a distributed service which meets the
> standards set forth in
>
> section 3.2. Reassignment registrations shall include each client's
> organizational information,
>
> except where specifically exempted by this policy.
>
>
>
> 6.5.5.2. Assignments visible within 7 days
>
> All assignments shall be made visible as required in section 4.2.3.7.1
> within seven calendar
>
> days of assignment.
>
>
>
> 6.5.5.3. Residential Subscribers
>
>   6.5.5.3.1. Residential Customer Privacy
>
>   To maintain the privacy of their residential customers, an organization
> with downstream
>
>   residential customers holding /64 and larger blocks may substitute that
> organization's
>
>   name for the customer's name, e.g. 'Private Customer - XYZ Network', and
> the customer's
>
>   street address may read 'Private Residence'. Each private downstream
> residential
>
>   reassignment must have accurate upstream Abuse and Technical POCs
> visible on the
>
>   WHOIS record for that block.
>
>
>
>
>
> New proposed policy:
>
>
>
> 6.5.5.1. Reassignment information
>
> Each static IPv6
>
> + re-allocation, reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses, or
> subdelegation of any
>
> + size that will be individually announced,
>
>
>
> shall be registered in
>
> the WHOIS directory via SWIP or a distributed service which meets the
> standards set forth in
>
> section 3.2. Reassignment registrations shall include each client's
> organizational information,
>
> except where specifically exempted by this policy.
>
>
>
> 6.5.5.2. Assignments visible within 7 days
>
> All assignments shall be made visible as required in section
>
> + 6.5.5.1
>
> within seven calendar
>
> days of assignment.
>
>
>
> 6.5.5.3. Residential Subscribers
>
>   6.5.5.3.1. Residential Customer Privacy
>
>   To maintain the privacy of their residential customers, an organization
> with downstream
>
>   residential customers
>
>   may substitute that organization's
>
>   name for the customer's name, e.g. 'Private Customer - XYZ Network', and
> the customer's
>
>   street address may read 'Private Residence'. Each private downstream
> residential
>
>   reassignment must have accurate upstream Abuse and Technical POCs
> visible on the
>
>   WHOIS record for that block.
>
>
>
> 6.5.5.4 Registration Requested by Recipient
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:31 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>
> On 21 September 2017, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the
> following Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status:
>
> ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
>
> The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found
> at:
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html
>
> You are encouraged to discuss all Recommended Draft Policies on PPML
> prior to their presentation at the next ARIN Public Policy and Members
> Meeting. PPML and PPC discussions are invaluable to the AC when
> determining community consensus.
>
> The PDP can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.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 should 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 <(571)%20266-0006>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 <(571)%20266-0006>
>
>
>

-- 
_______________________________________________________
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/20170927/81761edf/attachment.htm>