I don't support a relaxation of SWIP requirements for IPv4. I do support updating the language for IPv4 for clarity (if that is useful). current IPv4 language: /29 or more
possibly re-write for clarity: more than a /30. As far as IPv6 goes, there are some who recommend a /64 for point-to-point. One might argue that in the context of p-t-p an IPv4 /30 maps to a /64. I could certainly get behind SWIP requirements for "more than a /64" on these grounds. Please make the requirement to SWIP be on a nibble boundary. Nibbles being nice things, one could argue that end users are likely to get a /64 or the next size up which is a /60. If you want to catch all customers in the smallest size, you might make the boundary at "more than a /61" The next size up on the nibble boundary is a /56 putting the boundary at "more than a /57" Generally speaking any network that is sufficiently large to require subnetting, should have sufficient clue to support SWIP. Based on this reasoning "more than a /64" seems like an equable place to draw the line. Even "more than a /61" seems reasonable, as blocks are likely going to be assigned on nibbles. My next preferred choice would be "more than a /57" Also don't forget that residential users can opt out of publicly providing information. ___Jason On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:04 PM, <hostmas...@uneedus.com> wrote: > Hello, > > The line has to be drawn somewhere, and the idea when I drafted this > proposal was that it was wrong to treat IPv6 less favored than IPv6 as is > the current case. It also bothered me that the average residential and > small business account would have to go thru the SWIP process, just because > they want to have a minimum or so assignment of IPv6 space for their > network, when this was never a requirement for IPv4. As discussed, a /60 > of v6 is much the same as a /32 of v4. > > I chose 16 addresses/networks as the only reasonable number to make the > two protocols equal. As already discussed, 1 network is too small. If the > community thinks it is wrong to relax the current IPv4 requirements, I am > not opposed to removing 4.2.3.7.1 from the proposal, as long as the > community is willing to do something about the "Register every network" > problem that is the current policy in v6, and the changes to 6.5.5.1 that I > propose. > > While I suggest that a /60 should not trigger registration, if the > community would rather kick that up to a /56, I have no problem with this. > This would seem to be the more future proof option. Of course such a change > calls for a new title, maybe "New policy for IPv6 Assignment Registration", > and cite it as allowing even the small networks with a /32 of IPv4 to > obtain a reasonable assignment of IPv6 without registration requirements, > as is the current case with IPv4. > > Albert Erdmann > Network Administrator > Paradise On Line Inc. > > > > On Tue, 23 May 2017, William Herrin wrote: > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:35 PM, ARIN <i...@arin.net> wrote: >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration >>> requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 >>> >>> Policy statement: >>> >>> Amend 4.2.3.7.1 of the policy manual to strike "/29 or more" and change >>> to >>> "more than a /28". >>> >>> >> Hello, >> >> In my opinion... >> >> Leave /29 alone or change it to "more than a single IP address." In these >> days of IPv4 shortage, substantial networks sit behind small blocks of >> public addresses. These networks should be documented with reachable POCs >> lest the anti-spam/virus/malware folks slam down /24 filters for lack of >> information about how misbehaving networks are partitioned. >> >> >> Amend 6.5.5.1 of the policy manual to strike "/64 or more" and change to >>> "more than a /60". >>> >>> >> Change this to "more than a /56." Service providers should NOT be >> assigning >> /64's to end users. If you're doing that, you're doing it wrong. An IPv6 >> customer should be able to have more than one /64 subnet without resorting >> to NAT so /60 should be the absolute minimum end-user assignment, >> equivalent for all intents and purposes to an IPv4 /32. If we then want >> "equivalence" to the /29 policy so that individuals with the minimum and >> near-minimum assignment do not need to be SWIPed, it makes sense to move >> the next subnetting level up. In IPv6, assignment is strongly recommended >> on nibble boundaries, so that means /56. >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin >> >> -- >> William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us >> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >> >> _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschil...@google.com|571-266-0006
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.