<p dir="ltr">+1 - Support as written.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I know +1's aren't strictly needed in Last Call, but I want to explicitly<br>
state that I agree with the AC that sufficient consideration and discussion<br>
was given to the "should" vs. "shall" question before and during the PPM,<br>
and therefore I agree it is appropriate to send the policy to Last Call<br>
(and on to the board, if no un-considered objections are raised) without<br>
another public policy meeting/consultation.</p>
<p dir="ltr">-Scott</p>
<p dir="ltr">As Scott above.<br>
rd</p>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 11, 2017 3:36 PM, <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-request@arin.net">arin-ppml-request@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<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>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-request@arin.net">arin-ppml-request@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-owner@arin.net">arin-ppml-owner@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:<br>
Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements (Scott Leibrand)<br>
2. Re: LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:<br>
Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements (Gary Buhrmaster)<br>
3. Re: LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5:<br>
Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements (Christoph Blecker)<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>----------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:27:37 -0700<br>
From: Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: ARIN-PPML List <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy<br>
ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAGkMwz7-WoAz_NiFGWab0NEvCV0QvmPAd0-0rzn_p9W0DvQu8Q@mail.gmail.com">CAGkMwz7-WoAz_<wbr>NiFGWab0NEvCV0QvmPAd0-0rzn_<wbr>p9W0DvQu8Q@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
+1 - Support as written.<br>
<br>
I know +1's aren't strictly needed in Last Call, but I want to explicitly<br>
state that I agree with the AC that sufficient consideration and discussion<br>
was given to the "should" vs. "shall" question before and during the PPM,<br>
and therefore I agree it is appropriate to send the policy to Last Call<br>
(and on to the board, if no un-considered objections are raised) without<br>
another public policy meeting/consultation.<br>
<br>
-Scott<br>
<br>
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:16 PM, ARIN <<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 6 October 2017 and decided to send<br>
> the following to Last Call:<br>
><br>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration<br>
> Requirements<br>
><br>
> The AC provided the following statement to the community:<br>
><br>
> "Based on strong community support - on both the Public Policy Mailing<br>
> List and in person at ARIN 40 during the policy consultation - for<br>
> replacing the "should" qualifier in section 6.5.5.4 with "shall", the<br>
> Advisory Council, after careful review and discussion, has made the<br>
> requested change to the text."<br>
><br>
> Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should be<br>
> provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This Last Call period will<br>
> expire on 10 November 2017. After Last Call, the AC will conduct their Last<br>
> Call review.<br>
><br>
> The full text is below and available at:<br>
> <a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/<wbr>proposals/</a><br>
><br>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:<br>
> <a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/<wbr>pdp.html</a><br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
><br>
> Sean Hopkins<br>
> Policy Analyst<br>
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> AC's Statement of Conformance with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number<br>
> Resource Policy:<br>
><br>
> This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number<br>
> policy for easier IPv6 Registrations. The staff and legal review noted a<br>
> single clarification issue which has been addressed. There is ample support<br>
> for the proposal on PPML and no concerns have been raised by the community<br>
> regarding the proposal.<br>
><br>
> Problem Statement:<br>
><br>
> Current ARIN policy has different WHOIS directory registration<br>
> requirements for IPv4 vs IPv6 address assignments. IPv4 registration is<br>
> triggered for an assignment of any address block equal to or greater than a<br>
> /29 (i.e., eight IPv4 addresses). In the case of IPv6, registration occurs<br>
> for an assignment of any block equal to or greater than a /64, which<br>
> constitutes one entire IPv6 subnet and is the minimum block size for an<br>
> allocation. Accordingly, there is a significant disparity between IPv4 and<br>
> IPv6 WHOIS registration thresholds in the case of assignments, resulting in<br>
> more work in the case of IPv6 than is the case for IPv4. There is no<br>
> technical or policy rationale for the disparity, which could serve as a<br>
> deterrent to more rapid IPv6 adoption. The purpose of this proposal is to<br>
> 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<br>
> "assignment containing a /64 or more addresses" and change to<br>
> "re-allocation, reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses, or<br>
> subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced,?<br>
><br>
> and<br>
><br>
> 2) Alter section 6.5.5.2. "Assignments visible within 7 days" of the NRPM<br>
> to strike the text "4.2.3.7.1" and change to ?6.5.5.1"<br>
><br>
> and<br>
><br>
> 3) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the NRPM by<br>
> deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks"<br>
><br>
> and<br>
><br>
> 4) Add new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested by Recipient" of the<br>
> NRPM, to read: "If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of /64<br>
> or more addresses requests publishing of that assignment in ARIN's<br>
> registration database, the ISP shall register that assignment as described<br>
> in section 6.5.5.1."<br>
><br>
> Comments:<br>
><br>
> a. Timetable for implementation: Policy should be adopted as soon as<br>
> possible.<br>
><br>
> b. Anything else:<br>
><br>
> Author Comments:<br>
><br>
> IPv6 should not be more burdensome than the equivalent IPv4 network size.<br>
> Currently, assignments of /29 or more of IPv4 space (8 addresses) require<br>
> registration. The greatest majority of ISP customers who have assignments<br>
> of IPv4 space are of a single IPv4 address which do not trigger any ARIN<br>
> registration requirement when using IPv4. This is NOT true when these same<br>
> exact customers use IPv6, as assignments of /64 or more of IPv6 space<br>
> require registration. Beginning with RFC 3177, it has been standard<br>
> practice to assign a minimum assignment of /64 to every customer end user<br>
> site, and less is never used. This means that ALL IPv6 assignments,<br>
> including those customers that only use a single IPv4 address must be<br>
> registered with ARIN if they are given the minimum assignment of /64 of<br>
> IPv6 space. This additional effort may prevent ISP's from giving IPv6<br>
> addresses because of the additional expense of registering those addresses<br>
> with ARIN, which is not required for IPv4. The administrative burden of<br>
> 100% customer registration of IPv6 customers is unreasonable, when such is<br>
> not required for those customers receiving only IPv4 connections.<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>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20171011/18e764af/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/<wbr>pipermail/arin-ppml/<wbr>attachments/20171011/18e764af/<wbr>attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 19:30:29 +0000<br>
From: Gary Buhrmaster <<a href="mailto:gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com">gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy<br>
ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAMfXtQyFhBn6j3JiRsr-<wbr>XXcPr2SDb7--uM9iaRF91a0=<a href="mailto:Mg7pqw@mail.gmail.com">Mg7pqw<wbr>@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"<br>
<br>
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:16 PM, ARIN <<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 6 October 2017 and decided to send the<br>
> following to Last Call:<br>
><br>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration<br>
> Requirements<br>
><br>
> Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period.<br>
<br>
Support as written.<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:35:41 -0700<br>
From: Christoph Blecker <<a href="mailto:cblecker@gmail.com">cblecker@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy<br>
ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CADx2oGGPS6xHzJ6gXGYF==<a href="mailto:HWAPnx6f3QAndiH7Gaa8e5kZFBUQ@mail.gmail.com">HWAPnx<wbr>6f3QAndiH7Gaa8e5kZFBUQ@mail.<wbr>gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Strongly support as written.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Christoph<br>
<br>
On 11 October 2017 at 12:16, ARIN <<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 6 October 2017 and decided to send<br>
> the following to Last Call:<br>
><br>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration<br>
> Requirements<br>
><br>
> The AC provided the following statement to the community:<br>
><br>
> "Based on strong community support - on both the Public Policy Mailing<br>
> List and in person at ARIN 40 during the policy consultation - for<br>
> replacing the "should" qualifier in section 6.5.5.4 with "shall", the<br>
> Advisory Council, after careful review and discussion, has made the<br>
> requested change to the text."<br>
><br>
> Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should be<br>
> provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This Last Call period will<br>
> expire on 10 November 2017. After Last Call, the AC will conduct their Last<br>
> Call review.<br>
><br>
> The full text is below and available at:<br>
> <a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/<wbr>proposals/</a><br>
><br>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:<br>
> <a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/<wbr>pdp.html</a><br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
><br>
> Sean Hopkins<br>
> Policy Analyst<br>
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> AC's Statement of Conformance with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number<br>
> Resource Policy:<br>
><br>
> This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number<br>
> policy for easier IPv6 Registrations. The staff and legal review noted a<br>
> single clarification issue which has been addressed. There is ample support<br>
> for the proposal on PPML and no concerns have been raised by the community<br>
> regarding the proposal.<br>
><br>
> Problem Statement:<br>
><br>
> Current ARIN policy has different WHOIS directory registration<br>
> requirements for IPv4 vs IPv6 address assignments. IPv4 registration is<br>
> triggered for an assignment of any address block equal to or greater than a<br>
> /29 (i.e., eight IPv4 addresses). In the case of IPv6, registration occurs<br>
> for an assignment of any block equal to or greater than a /64, which<br>
> constitutes one entire IPv6 subnet and is the minimum block size for an<br>
> allocation. Accordingly, there is a significant disparity between IPv4 and<br>
> IPv6 WHOIS registration thresholds in the case of assignments, resulting in<br>
> more work in the case of IPv6 than is the case for IPv4. There is no<br>
> technical or policy rationale for the disparity, which could serve as a<br>
> deterrent to more rapid IPv6 adoption. The purpose of this proposal is to<br>
> 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<br>
> "assignment containing a /64 or more addresses" and change to<br>
> "re-allocation, reassignment containing a /47 or more addresses, or<br>
> subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced,?<br>
><br>
> and<br>
><br>
> 2) Alter section 6.5.5.2. "Assignments visible within 7 days" of the NRPM<br>
> to strike the text "4.2.3.7.1" and change to ?6.5.5.1"<br>
><br>
> and<br>
><br>
> 3) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the NRPM by<br>
> deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks"<br>
><br>
> and<br>
><br>
> 4) Add new section 6.5.5.4 "Registration Requested by Recipient" of the<br>
> NRPM, to read: "If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of /64<br>
> or more addresses requests publishing of that assignment in ARIN's<br>
> registration database, the ISP shall register that assignment as described<br>
> in section 6.5.5.1."<br>
><br>
> Comments:<br>
><br>
> a. Timetable for implementation: Policy should be adopted as soon as<br>
> possible.<br>
><br>
> b. Anything else:<br>
><br>
> Author Comments:<br>
><br>
> IPv6 should not be more burdensome than the equivalent IPv4 network size.<br>
> Currently, assignments of /29 or more of IPv4 space (8 addresses) require<br>
> registration. The greatest majority of ISP customers who have assignments<br>
> of IPv4 space are of a single IPv4 address which do not trigger any ARIN<br>
> registration requirement when using IPv4. This is NOT true when these same<br>
> exact customers use IPv6, as assignments of /64 or more of IPv6 space<br>
> require registration. Beginning with RFC 3177, it has been standard<br>
> practice to assign a minimum assignment of /64 to every customer end user<br>
> site, and less is never used. This means that ALL IPv6 assignments,<br>
> including those customers that only use a single IPv4 address must be<br>
> registered with ARIN if they are given the minimum assignment of /64 of<br>
> IPv6 space. This additional effort may prevent ISP's from giving IPv6<br>
> addresses because of the additional expense of registering those addresses<br>
> with ARIN, which is not required for IPv4. The administrative burden of<br>
> 100% customer registration of IPv6 customers is unreasonable, when such is<br>
> not required for those customers receiving only IPv4 connections.<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>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20171011/c6d3a7c0/attachment.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/<wbr>pipermail/arin-ppml/<wbr>attachments/20171011/c6d3a7c0/<wbr>attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
ARIN-PPML mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a><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>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 148, Issue 8<br>
******************************<wbr>***********<br>
</blockquote></div></div>