<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div>No. It says:</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Each static IPv6 assignment containing a /47 or more addresses, or sub-delegation of any size that will be individually announced, shall be registered in the WHOIS directory</span></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">I read that as:</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Each static IPv6 assignment containing a /47 or more addresses, and each sub-delegation of any size that will be individually announced, shall be registered in the WHOIS directory</span><br><br>So a /48 sub-delegation shall be registered if it will be individually announced. </div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">You said:</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">To be explicit, to me, "/47 or more addresses, or sub-delegation of any size that will be individually announced," refers to /47s, /46s, /45s ... and not /48s, /49s, /50s, etc.</span></font></div></blockquote></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">That entire quoted clause refers to /48s (or longer, if such becomes possible) that will be individually announced. So your clarification, as originally stated, does not match my reading of the text. However, it now sounds like that's not what you meant, and you were trying to say:</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">To be explicit, to me, "/47 or more addresses," refers to /47s, /46s, /45s ... and not /48s, /49s, /50s, etc.</span></font></div></blockquote><div><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></font></div></div><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">If that's what you actually meant, then yes, that is the way to read "more": as equivalent to "/47 or shorter". </span></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></font></div></div></div></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Leif, it seems like we have some potential ambiguity in the new text as to whether "<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">or sub-delegation of any size" is part of the subject of the sentence, or a subordinate clause to "containing".</span> Does my rewrite above clarify your intent? Or were you intending it to mean "<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Each static IPv6 assignment containing a ... sub-delegation of any size that will be individually announced, shall be registered in the WHOIS directory"? That interpretation makes no sense to me, as the sub-delegation clause would be redundant. So if that's what you meant, I'd appreciate some clarity on what it is intended to accomplish. </span></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br><div>Scott</div></div><div><br>On Jul 23, 2017, at 8:35 PM, John Springer <<a href="mailto:3johnl@gmail.com">3johnl@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">Thanks, Scott,<div><div><br></div><div>Are we energetically agreeing? You scared me there for a second. /48s are excluded, unless they are part of a "subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced". Yes.</div><div><br></div><div>How is that defined by the way? Will be individually announced in 2 years, 2 days, right now? </div><div><br></div><div>On another matter, this problem statement has been making me uneasy all along, but because it was only required to be clear and in scope to be accepted as Draft Policy, it was not appropriate for me to object. This seems like as good a time as any to address some concerns, which are my opinions only.</div><div><br></div><div>"Current ARIN policy has different WHOIS directory registration requirements for IPv4 vs IPv6 address assignments."</div><div><br></div><div>This is a correct statement! It is not a problem however, nor is it sufficient motive for trying to solve a problem, per se.</div><div><br></div><div>"IPv4 registration is triggered for an assignment of any address block equal to or greater than a /29 (i.e., eight IPv4 addresses).</div><div> In the case of IPv6, registration occurs for an assignment of any block equal to or greater than a /64," </div><div><br></div><div>Two facts. The second is undoubtedly a great pity, but to entangle these logically is a fallacy of inconsistency, specifically a false equivalence. These two facts are unrelated. It does not help the case to try to make them interdependent. And it is not needed. All that is being attempted is to modify V6 SWIP requirements. Do that. And DO NOT settle on 8 subnets. </div><div><br></div><div>"which constitutes one entire IPv6 subnet and is the minimum block size for an allocation."<br></div><div><br></div><div>I think I'm looking at current text. How did this make it this far? One ENTIRE IPV6 subnet? There are lots of entire V6 subnets all the way from /0 to /128. What does that have to do with anything? And, yeah, the SWIP boundary being the so called "minimum" allocation seems broken, but that is its own thing.</div><div><br></div><div>"There is no technical or policy rationale for the disparity, which could serve as a deterrent to more rapid IPv6 adoption."</div><div><br></div><div>Possibly true, but irrelevant. There is no technical or policy rationale for them being alike either, nor is there any reason to suppose that if they were, folks would adopt V6 faster. SWIPing /64 is definitely wrong for V6. Concentrate on that. We can make policy for V6 without needing to refer to V4.</div><div><br></div><div>"The purpose of this proposal is to eliminate the disparity and corresponding adverse consequences."</div><div><br></div><div>With respect, it is not. The disparity does not qualify as a logical motive. The brokenness of SWIPing /64s does not require injustice and if /64 SWIPing is a deterrent to V6 adoption, that is its own good and sufficient reason. If you had to refer to an analogy, you could say, "SWIPing /64s is analogous to SWIPing /32s and that seems dumb".</div><div><br></div><div>So all you need is:</div><div><br></div><div>Problem Statement: SWIPing IPV6 /64s is the problem. The purpose of this proposal is to pick a different number. </div><div><div><br></div><div>Policy statement:</div><div> 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 subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced,"</div><div>and </div><div> 2) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the NRPM by deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks"</div></div><div><br></div><div>BUT. These observations do not appear to have any effect one way or the other on the policy text. To me, picking a different number does not have anything to do with disparity, but so what? Changing the IPV6 SWIP threshold is not unfair and partial if someone makes unfounded assertions regarding linkages between v4 and V6. And it is not technically unsound to make fallacious observations if they are kind of orthogonal to the meat of the matter.<br></div><div><br></div><div>So, still support. I'd rather see it simpler, but I guess I can tolerate a little hand waving.</div><div><br></div><div>Writing solely on my own behalf,</div><div><br></div><div>John Springer<br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Scott Leibrand <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com" target="_blank">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><span class=""><div>On Jul 21, 2017, at 8:31 PM, John Springer <<a href="mailto:3johnl@gmail.com" target="_blank">3johnl@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">I support this Draft Policy as re-written.<div><br></div><div>I shared the author's distaste for the requirement that IPV6 /64s be SWIP'd, but was not reassured when the discussion veered to consider prefixes between /48 and /64. AFAIK, ISPs have long been encouraged to apply for their allocations based on the idea of assigning a /48 to each 'customer' to provide room for unknown technologies, among other things. I did not wish to endanger that premise, but current language appears to moot that concern.</div><div><br></div><div>To be explicit, to me, "/47 or more addresses, or sub-delegation of any size that will be individually announced," refers to /47s, /46s, /45s ... and not /48s, /49s, /50s, etc.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>That's not what it says. It says /48s (or longer) should be individually SWIPped if they're going to be announced. Otherwise there's no reason for the extra clause. </div><div><br></div><div>Blocks in the GRT need to be SWIPped to the announcing party if that's a different organization from the holder of the larger block. </div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>-Scott</div></font></span><div><div class="h5"><br><blockquote type="cite"><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_-27341617339533343m_-4922502725559143804WordSection1">
<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/pr<wbr>oposals/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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________</span><br><span>PPML</span><br><span>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to</span><br><span>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).</span><br><span>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:</span><br><span><a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/arin-ppml</a></span><br><span>Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.</span></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote></div></body></html>