[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-5
Rudolph Daniel
rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Thu Sep 28 13:13:49 EDT 2017
I am in support of the policy proposal with "shall" but I would like to
know of possible negative impact if approved as policy; on the past
reassignments that were not SWIP ed.
Is this perceived as an issue; or will the policy be retroactive? Either
way.
Rudi Daniel
*danielcharles consulting
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>*
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:05 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:
> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-request at arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-owner at arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6
> Registration Requirements (Owen DeLong)
> 2. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6
> Registration Requirements (Owen DeLong)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:46:01 -0500
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> To: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
> Cc: Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>, "arin-ppml at arin.net"
> <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
> Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
> Message-ID: <314B3DC2-87BA-434D-9EEC-F2BD60F678EC at delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/
> attachments/20170928/6d6c415b/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:03:55 -0500
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> To: Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca>
> Cc: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>, Jason Schiller
> <jschiller at google.com>, "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:
> Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
> Message-ID: <A2F929CE-30CE-47F6-BA94-6DAA69BCA668 at delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> While I wouldn?t consider it an editorial change, I would consider it a
> minor change, which, if it had good community discussion and support at the
> meeting, would, IMHO, be within the scope of pre-last-call changes that
> could be made between the PPM and last call.
>
> The AC has, as has been mentioned before, significant discretion in
> determining what is a ?minor change?.
>
> This is strictly my own opinion and may or may not be shared by other AC
> members, staff, or anyone else.
>
> Owen
>
> > On Sep 28, 2017, at 10:46 AM, Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/
> attachments/20170928/0fbeb396/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 147, Issue 43
> ******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170928/397bc316/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list