<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I think that the "/64 or more
addresses" and the "regardless of size" are meant to convey that
any netblock between a /64 and a /48 can and should be registered
if the recipient requests it, even if the block is smaller than
the /47 which would make it mandatory. Perhaps there is better
wording that would make this clearer.<br>
<br>
Three ranges:<br>
<ol>
<li>smaller than /64: shouldn't be issued, can't be registered.</li>
<li>/64 through /48: register at recipient's request</li>
<li>/47 or larger: must be registered</li>
</ol>
I agree on dynamic assignments<br>
<br>
Otherwise, I think this is a much clearer and better update to the
proposed policy, and can't find any other reason not to support
it. (I.E. this is a tentative vote FOR, if there is such a
thing.)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 8/15/2017 3:59 PM, David Farmer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN-Dau1+UfZ9Qs8o71s2A7C=KSO-ZsZrBtviLW+r97fCFueEsA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I support what I think is the intent, but I have
language/editorial nits;<br>
<br>
1. In 3) below; Which is it "a /64 or more addresses" or
"regardless of size" that requires registration? I think
logically we need one or the other, or some qualification on
"regardless of size" statement. I think it is a good idea to
not require registration of less than a /64. But the current
language seems contradictory, and therefore confusing, my
recommendation is delete "regardless of size", from the
sentence and leaving "a /64 or more addresses". I pretty sure
we don't want people having an expectation that they can
request the registration of "their" /128 address.<br>
<br>
2. Also in 3) below; It would seem to require even dynamic
assignments be registered if requested, I don't think that is
our intent either, section 6.5.5.1 starts with "Each static
IPv6 assignment containing", this needs a similar
qualification.<br>
<br>
Also, I'm fine with the deltas in the policy statement but it
would be helpful to see the final resulting policy block,
maybe in a separate email so we can all see how the result
reads. <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Thanks, I think we are getting close,
maybe one or two more turns of the crank. </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:06 PM,
ARIN <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:info@arin.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">info@arin.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The following has been
revised:<br>
<br>
* Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment
Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6<br>
<br>
Revised text is below and can be found at:<br>
<a
href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.arin.net/policy/pr<wbr>oposals/2017_5.html</a><br>
<br>
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML.
The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the
conformance of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of
Internet number resource policy as stated in the Policy
Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles
are:<br>
<br>
* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource
Administration<br>
* Technically Sound<br>
* Supported by the Community<br>
<br>
The PDP can be found at:<br>
<a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.arin.net/policy/pd<wbr>p.html</a><br>
<br>
Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found
at:<br>
<a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.arin.net/policy/pr<wbr>oposals/index.html</a><br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sean Hopkins<br>
Policy Analyst<br>
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Problem Statement:<br>
<br>
Current ARIN policy has different WHOIS directory
registration requirements for IPv4 vs IPv6 address
assignments. IPv4 registration is triggered for an
assignment of any address block equal to or greater than a
/29 (i.e., eight IPv4 addresses). 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. 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. There is no technical or
policy rationale for the disparity, which could serve as a
deterrent to more rapid IPv6 adoption. The purpose of this
proposal is to eliminate the disparity and corresponding
adverse consequences.<br>
<br>
Policy statement:<br>
<br>
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,"<br>
<br>
and<br>
<br>
2) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy"
of the NRPM by deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger
blocks"<br>
<br>
and<br>
<br>
3) Add new section 6.5.5.4 "Downstream Registration
Requests" to the NRPM that reads "If the downstream
recipient of a netblock ( a /64 or more addresses)
requests publishing in ARIN's registration database, the
ISP must register the netblock, regardless of size."<br>
<br>
Comments:<br>
<br>
a. Timetable for implementation: Policy should be
adopted as soon as possible.<br>
<br>
b. Anything else:<br>
<br>
Author Comments:<br>
<br>
IPv6 should not be more burdensome than the equivalent
IPv4 network size. Currently, assignments of /29 or more
of IPv4 space (8 addresses) require registration. 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.
This is NOT true when these same exact customers use IPv6,
as assignments of /64 or more of IPv6 space require
registration. 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.
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. 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. The administrative
burden of 100% customer registration of IPv6 customers is
unreasonable, when such is not required for those
customers receiving only IPv4 connections.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
</pre>
</body>
</html>