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

[Owen DeLong]

Given this, I personally think that shall is the better choice of wording for 6.5.5.4.

Owen

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 4:59 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170928/6d6c415b/attachment.htm>