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

[Kevin Blumberg]

I support the policy as written.

If the stick isn’t big enough it appears a simple policy change could be used, not just for this section but all the other areas “should” is used.

I would like to point out that “should” is currently used 30 times in the NRPM.

In reading John’s explanation, I can’t see “should” and “shall” being considered an editorial change. To extend the policy cycle to another meeting would be far worse.

Out of curiosity, how often has ARIN had to deal with SWIP issues like this, where the other party ignored you?

Thanks,

Kevin Blumberg


From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 5:59 PM
To: Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

On 26 Sep 2017, at 3:18 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>> wrote:

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?

Jason -

   If this policy change 2017-5 is adopted, then a provider that has IPv6 space from ARIN
   but routinely fails to publish registration information (for /47 or larger reassignments)
   would be in violation, and ARIN would have clear policy language that would enable
   us to discuss with the ISP the need to publish this information in a timely manner.

   Service providers who blatantly ignore such a provision on an ongoing basis will be
   in the enviable position of hearing me chat with them about their obligations to follow
   ARIN number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. potential revocation
   of the IPv6 number resources.)

   If the langauge for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested by Recipient”
   reads “… the ISP should register that assignment”, then ARIN would send on any
   received customer complaint to the ISP, and remind the ISP that they should
   follow number resource policy in this regard but not otherwise taking any action.

   If the language for the new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested by Recipient”
   reads “… the ISP shall register that assignment”, then failure to do so would be
   a far more serious matter that, if left unaddressed on a chronic manner, could have
   me discussing the customer complaints as a sign of potential failure to comply with
   number resource policy, including the consequences (i.e. potential revocation of
   the IPv6 number resources.)

   I would note that the community should be very clear about its intentions for ISPs
   with regard to customer requested reassignment publication, given there is large
   difference in obligations that result from policy language choice.   ARIN staff remains,
   as always, looking forward to implementing whatever policy emerges from the
   consensus-based policy development process.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170928/c9d2e4ca/attachment.htm>