<div dir="ltr">This looks good: I support.<div><br></div><div>For clarity, so we don't all have to do it, and to help make sure we're not missing anything, here's what the resulting 6.5.5 looks like after modification:</div><div><br></div><div><div>6.5.5. Registration</div><div><br></div><div>ISPs are required to demonstrate efficient use of IP address space allocations by providing appropriate documentation, including but not limited to assignment histories, showing their efficient use.</div><div><br></div><div>6.5.5.1. Reassignment information</div><div><br></div><div>Each static IPv6 assignment containing a <span style="color:rgb(153,51,102);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px">/47 or more addresses, or sub-delegation of any size that will be individually announced,</span> shall be registered in the WHOIS directory via SWIP or a distributed service which meets the standards set forth in section 3.2. Reassignment registrations shall include each client's organizational information, except where specifically exempted by this policy.</div><div><br></div><div>6.5.5.2. Assignments visible within 7 days</div><div><br></div><div>All assignments shall be made visible as required in section 4.2.3.7.1 within seven calendar days of assignment.</div><div><br></div><div>6.5.5.3. Residential Subscribers</div><div><br></div><div>6.5.5.3.1. Residential Customer Privacy</div><div><br></div><div>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 record for that block.</div><div><br></div><div>-Scott</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Leif Sawyer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lsawyer@gci.com" target="_blank">lsawyer@gci.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="m_-9114795104324841326WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366">Happy Friday, everybody.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366">As promised, here is the latest rewrite of the draft policy below, and it will soon be updated at:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"><a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/<wbr>proposals/2017_5.html</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366">There are two changes noted in the policy statement: the first of which reflects what seems to be the current<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366">consensus of the PPML regarding netblock sizing; the second is to strike language that may be read as either restrictive<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366">or non-operational.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366">----<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366">Problem Statement:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> Current ARIN policy has different WHOIS directory registration requirements for IPv4 vs IPv6 address assignments.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> IPv4 registration is triggered for an assignment of any address block equal to or greater than a /29 (i.e., eight IPv4 addresses).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> In the case of IPv6, registration occurs for an assignment of any block equal to or greater than a /64, which constitutes one entire IPv6 subnet and
is the minimum block size for an allocation.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> Accordingly, there is a significant disparity between IPv4 and IPv6 WHOIS registration thresholds in the case of assignments, resulting in more work
in the case of IPv6 than is the case for IPv4.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> There is no technical or policy rationale for the disparity, which could serve as a deterrent to more rapid IPv6 adoption.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> The purpose of this proposal is to eliminate the disparity and corresponding adverse consequences.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366">Policy statement:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> 1) Alter section 6.5.5.1 "Reassignment information" of the NRPM to strike "/64 or more addresses" and change to "/47 or more addresses, or sub-delegation
of any size that will be individually announced,"<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366">and
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> 2) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the NRPM by deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks"<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366">Comments:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366">a. Timetable for implementation:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> Policy should be adopted as soon as possible.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366">b. Anything else:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> Author Comments:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> IPv6 should not be more burdensome than the equivalent IPv4 network size.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> Currently, assignments of /29 or more of IPv4 space (8 addresses) require registration<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> The greatest majority of ISP customers who have assignments of IPv4 space are of a single IPv4 address which do not trigger any ARIN registration requirement
when using IPv4.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> This is NOT true when these same exact customers use IPv6, as assignments of /64 or more of IPv6 space require registration.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> Beginning with RFC 3177, it has been standard practice to assign a minimum assignment of /64 to every customer end user site, and less is never used.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> This means that ALL IPv6 assignments, including those customers that only use a single IPv4 address must be registered with ARIN if they are given
the minimum assignment of /64 of IPv6 space. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> This additional effort may prevent ISP's from giving IPv6 addresses because of the additional expense of registering those addresses with ARIN, which
is not required for IPv4.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"> The administrative burden of 100% customer registration of IPv6 customers is unreasonable, when such is not required for those customers receiving
only IPv4 connections.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366">---<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366">Leif Sawyer<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366">Advisory Council<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#993366"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br></blockquote></div><br></div>