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

Thu Sep 28 23:59:54 EDT 2017

Hello All,

I just wanted to mention some procedural points to consider in this discussion and thank you all for contributing to this debate. It does provide helpful guidance to the AC.

The current text is frozen, and cannot be changed until it is discussed at the meeting in San Jose. However, it can be discussed whether people would prefer "shall" or "should". If the community wanted the AC to advance this proposal by changing "should" to "shall", without going to another meeting, it does have to be discussed in San Jose with clear consensus, since that is not an editorial change.

Clear direction from the community helps the AC in their decision making process. If the discussion and feedback at the meeting is clearly split between changes to the text, it can make final decisions challenging.

Thank you all for your help in this process.

Dan Alexander
AC Chair

From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>> on behalf of WOOD Alison * DAS <Alison.WOOD at oregon.gov<mailto:Alison.WOOD at oregon.gov>>
Date: Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 2:56 PM
To: 'David Farmer' <farmer at umn.edu<mailto:farmer at umn.edu>>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>" <arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

I concur with David’s point of view as a valuable starting point.

I support as written.

Thank you

-Alison

From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 10:18 AM
To: Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca<mailto:kevinb at thewire.ca>>
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

I agree with Kevin if a bigger stick is need to ensure compliance in the future we can take that step if/when there proves to be a serious non-compliance issue in the future. Personally, I'm not ready to threaten revocation, in this case. My intent in suggesting what is now 6.5.5.4 was to crate an avenue for ARIN Staff to intervene with ISPs on behalf of customers, if a customer wanted their assignment registered and their ISP refused to register their assignment as requested, the customer can appeal the issue to ARIN.  I'm fine with that intervention being short of threatening revocation, at least until their proves to be a serious issue with ISP's refusing valid requests by endusers to register assignments.  I think the current language provides the proper balance.

I'm fine with the standard procedure starting with ARIN Staff forwarding such complaints to an ISP requesting an explanation of the situation. However, if this develops into a chronic matter for an ISP, I would expect ARIN Staff to escalate the issue beyond simply asking for an explanation.  Further after escalation, if the matter continues to be chronic, I would expect eventually the community to be altered to the situation. Probably not the specifics of which ISP and customers, but at least that there is an issue and some sense of the situation involved.

Therefore, I support the policy as written. I'm not strongly opposed to changing from "should" to "shall" for section 6.5.5.4, but I'd prefer keeping that change in reserve, so we can go there, if there proves to be serious issues with non-compliance in the future. Put another way, I think voluntary compliance is highly preferred for this issue, and if voluntary compliance proves insufficient, then we can deal with that in the future.

Thanks.

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca<mailto: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<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<mailto:jschiller at google.com>>
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.

--
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu<mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170929/d6f929bd/attachment.htm>