[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-5
Rudolph Daniel
rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Thu Sep 28 14:40:06 EDT 2017
Jason /Chris
Thank you for the comment; good to go...I will go with "shall".
Rudi Daniel
*danielcharles consulting
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>*
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
wrote:
> Rudi,
> Thanks for commenting on the "shall question".
>
> Chris,
>
> Can you comment on the "shall" question?
>
> Rudi,
>
> As it currently stands all static IPv6 customers with a /64 or more are
> SWIP'd
>
> "Each static IPv6 assignment containing a /64 or more addresses
> shall be registered in the WHOIS directory via SWIP"
>
> Dynamic customers don't get a re-assignment or re-allocation.
> Usually there is a large aggregate re-assigned to the ISP
> and designated as used by that ISP's customers in a given market.
>
>
> I imagine there are not very many customers with a static IPv6 address
> smaller than a /64 who would want their address SWIP'd, likely even less
> who plan to have static down stream customers, and certainly
> won't be multi-homing, or routing their space discreetly.
>
>
> In the unlikely event that there are, I expect there would be a 6 month
> time period pending implementation, and even after that point ARIN
> would happily work with ISPs who are working in good faith, and making
> progress towards removing hurdles to accomplish this.
>
> As it stands this proposed policy has a lower SWIP burden than the current
> one.
>
> ___Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Chris Woodfield <chris at semihuman.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Rudolph,
>>
>> My reading of the proposal is that the registration is triggered by the
>> request from the downstream recipient, which implies that if no prior
>> requests have been received, then there would be no duty to register.
>> Requests from downstreams received after the policy is implemented would be
>> subject to these terms.
>>
>> I’ll agree that this is ambiguous re: requests from downstreams received
>> prior to implementation, but in practical terms, I’d expect interested
>> downstreams to be aware of the policy change and simply resubmit that
>> request, if the prior request was not granted.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -C
>>
>> On Sep 28, 2017, at 10:13 AM, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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/20170
>>> 928/6d6c415b/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/20170
>>> 928/0fbeb396/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
>>> ******************************************
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170928/caddab81/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list