[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-6: Clarify Reassignment Requirements in 4.2.3.7.1

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

I suggest rather than reinvent the wheel, we instead consider adopting the 
current IPv6 language on this subject, as based on past discussion, most 
of the issues being identified have been already addressed.

These issues include the reduction of the number of networks required to 
be registered, the issue of many of the named contacts having no knowledge 
about dealing with abuse complaints, therefore making it best by default 
to allow abuse contacts to point to the upstream ISP. If also contains a 
requirement for a network to be registered in SWIP if the downstream 
recipient requests it, because that network desires to receive directly 
any abuse reports, and would be assumed to have staff to deal with it.

This is that IPv6 language I propose, modified with IPv4 network sizes. 
This language comes from 6.5.5.1 to 6.5.5.4 of the NRPM:

4.2.3.7.1. Reassignment information

Each static IPv4 reassignment or reallocation containing a /23 or more 
addresses, or subdelegation of any size that will be individually 
announced, shall be registered in the WHOIS directory via SWIP or a 
distributed service which meets the standards set forth in section 3.2. 
Reassignment and reallocation registrations shall include each client's 
organizational information, except where specifically exempted by this 
policy.

4.2.3.7.3.2. Residential Customer Privacy

To maintain the privacy of their residential customers, an organization 
with downstream residential customers may substitute that organization's 
name for the customer's name, e.g. 'Private Customer - XYZ Network', and 
the customer's street address may read 'Private Residence'. Each private 
downstream residential reassignment must have accurate upstream Abuse and 
Technical POCs visible on the WHOIS or Distributed Information Service 
record for that block.

4.2.3.7.4. Registration Requested by Recipient

If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of /29 or more 
addresses requests publishing of that assignment in ARIN's registration 
database, the ISP shall register that assignment as described in section 
4.2.3.7.1.

I selected the sizes based on the following, but of course these values 
are subject to discussion and change.

/23 was chosen because it is the next size above the minimum size that is 
able to be separately routed.  /47 was the value chosen at the IPv6 level. 
/29 would be the current value of the current policy.  I just picked one, 
but discussion will reveal what value would be best.

/29 was chosen for the request registration value, as this is the current 
value.  To be strictly the same as the current IPv6 policy, /32 would need 
to be the value, but it seems that letting everyone register their /32 
might be considered a bigger work generator than eliminating the SWIP for 
these customers.  We may want them to have a bigger network before 
allowing them to force registration.

4.2.3.7.3.2 was changed to remove the network size, simply making it such 
that IF SWIP registration is required, the privacy data may be used 
instead if residential.  The same was done with the IPv6 policy, which 
used to contain the phrase "/64 or more".

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.