<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Aug 15, 2017, at 12:59 , David Farmer <<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu" class="">farmer@umn.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">I support what I think is the intent, but I have language/editorial nits;<br class=""><br class="">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 class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>While I support the edit to delete unnecessary and non-active verbiage, I think it is overly pedantic and do not find the current wording at all misleading or confusing.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">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 class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>I would support adding the word static to 6.5.5.4 as “…recipient of a static netblock…”</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">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 class=""></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_extra">Thanks, I think we are getting close, maybe one or two more turns of the crank. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>While we’re turning the crank, can we please fix the title since IPv4 is no longer relevant to the proposal and there’s really no equalization happening?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Perhaps “Improved Registration Requirements for IPv6”</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:06 PM, ARIN <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">info@arin.net</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><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 class="">
<br class="">
* Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6<br class="">
<br class="">
Revised text is below and can be found at:<br class="">
<a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://www.arin.net/policy/pr<wbr class="">oposals/2017_5.html</a><br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration<br class="">
* Technically Sound<br class="">
* Supported by the Community<br class="">
<br class="">
The PDP can be found at:<br class="">
<a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://www.arin.net/policy/pd<wbr class="">p.html</a><br class="">
<br class="">
Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:<br class="">
<a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://www.arin.net/policy/pr<wbr class="">oposals/index.html</a><br class="">
<br class="">
Regards,<br class="">
<br class="">
Sean Hopkins<br class="">
Policy Analyst<br class="">
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Problem Statement:<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Policy statement:<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
and<br class="">
<br class="">
2) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the NRPM by deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks"<br class="">
<br class="">
and<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Comments:<br class="">
<br class="">
a. Timetable for implementation: Policy should be adopted as soon as possible.<br class="">
<br class="">
b. Anything else:<br class="">
<br class="">
Author Comments:<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
______________________________<wbr class="">_________________<br class="">
PPML<br class="">
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br class="">
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br class="">
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br class="">
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/<wbr class="">listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br class="">
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br class="">
</blockquote></div><br class=""><br clear="all" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div>-- <br class=""><div class="gmail_signature">===============================================<br class="">David Farmer <a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank" class="">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br class="">Networking & Telecommunication Services<br class="">Office of Information Technology<br class="">University of Minnesota <br class="">2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<br class="">Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<br class="">=============================================== </div>
</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">PPML<br class="">You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br class="">the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" class="">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br class="">Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br class=""><a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" class="">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br class="">Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>