That was not changed yet, as I'm still waiting for more folks to respond. The update was only for the removal of the IPv4 portion, as I mentioned in my previous email.
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 11:13 AM To: ARIN Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 [External Email] It looks like /60 still needs to be changed to /56 to reflect the consensus on PPML. Or was there some reason not to do that (yet)? Scott > On Jun 7, 2017, at 11:58 AM, ARIN <i...@arin.net<mailto:i...@arin.net>> wrote: > > The following has been revised: > > * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration > requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 > > Revised text is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html<https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html> > > 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: > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > * Technically Sound > * Supported by the Community > > The PDP can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html<https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html> > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html<https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html> > > Regards, > > Sean Hopkins > Policy Analyst > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > > > Problem Statement: > > 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 or less (CGnat), which do not trigger > any ARIN registration requirement when using IPv4. This is NOT true when > these same exact customers use IPv6. > > Currently, 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. > > IPv6 assignments are therefore treated stricter than IPv4 assignments. Policy > should either treat both protocols the same, or provide incentive for the > IPv6 future. A typical ISP serving residential and small business customers > with both IPv4 and IPv6 would typically provide the following assignments to > each customer site: /32 (one IP) of IPv4 and a /64 (one network) of IPv6. > Under the current policy, that small network customer is exempt from > registration for their IPv4 assignment, but the ISP would be required to > register ALL IPv6 customers, even those of this smallest network size. > > In actual fact, most ISP's that are providing their customers with a /64 or > more of IPv6 space are not in fact registering this fact with ARIN, even > though 6.5.5.1 clearly requires this. > > It is my belief that these residential and small business customers should > not require registration if they did not require registration for the same > size IPv4 network, including routers with Vlan and other security support. > and thus I propose to make the standard for registration only those customers > that have more than 16 IPv6 /64 networks. This would treat IPv6 slightly > better than IPv4, and provide additional encouragement for adoption. > > Policy statement: > > Amend 6.5.5.1 of the policy manual to strike "/64 or more" and change to > "more than a /60". > > Comments: > > a. Timetable for implementation: > > Policy should be adopted as soon as possible, as the new administrative > burden of 100% customer registration of IPv6 customers is unreasonable, when > such is not required for those customers receiving only IPv4 connections. > IPv6 should not be more burdensome than the equivalent IPv4 network size. > > b. Anything else: > > The specific sizes chosen set the point of registration for each site to more > than 16 networks or addresses, so that those with 16 or less IPv6 networks > (/60) have no registration requirement. This change will result in both > protocols being treated exactly the same, and removes residential and small > business accounts from any registration requirement with ARIN, and the burden > that will create for all ISP's. > > There are those that might argue that a residental customer will never have a > need for more than a /64 of IPv6. Clearly this is false in an IOT and/or > wireless world, as many routers already provide a separate address range for > wired vs wireless to prevent wired hacking via the wireless space, and also > may provide a guest wireless SSID apart from the one provided to the regular > users of that same network. Such separation in the IPv4 world is currently > done in RFC1918 space using NAT. In IPv6, the equivalent must be done with > different /64 blocks. Since good security practices require use at least 2 > /64 blocks for wireless and/or IOT isolation, this would require a minimum of > a /60 of IPv6 space or up to 16 networks or vlans, an amount that is > consistent with a residential or small business network. This type network > does not trigger registration under the current IPv4 policy, and its equal > should not trigger registration with ARIN based on the current IPv6 policy as > is curr ently the case, and thus, this policy needs to be changed. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > (ARIN-PPML@arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml<http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact i...@arin.net<mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any > issues. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml<http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> Please contact i...@arin.net<mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ 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.
