Thanks, Albert.
We're taking all of this feedback under consideration, and I'll endeavor
to have updates after the holiday week is over.
Leif Sawyer
ARIN Advisory Council
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of
hostmas...@uneedus.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 12:48 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment
Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
[External Email]
It has now been about 4 weeks since ARIN-2017-5 was last revised.
Based on the comments received, "more than a /56" is the consensus.
I ask that the AC revise the proposal to this value, so it can be further
considered.
This is the tally so far:
/56 9 votes
Any of these levels are OK - 2 votes
/60 2 votes
/61 1 vote
/57 1 vote
/53 1 vote
/49 1 vote
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Wed, 7 Jun 2017, Leif Sawyer wrote:
> 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<mailto: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<mailto:i...@arin.net%3cmailto: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><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><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><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 cu!
rr
> 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<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net%3cmailto: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><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<mailto:i...@arin.net%3cmailto: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<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net%3cmailto: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><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<mailto:i...@arin.net%3cmailto: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.
