Even though the /49, /50 ... /128 is technically covered by the "any size"
language, for all practical purposes /48 or more is all that can be
advertised, as nothing smaller than a /48 is contained in the GRT.
Thus, your perception that it covers only sub-delegations of /48 or more
is correct.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Scott Leibrand wrote:
On Jul 21, 2017, at 8:31 PM, John Springer <3jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
I support this Draft Policy as re-written.
I shared the author's distaste for the requirement that IPV6 /64s be SWIP'd,
but was not reassured when the discussion veered to consider prefixes between
/48 and /64. AFAIK, ISPs have long been encouraged to apply for their
allocations based on the idea of assigning a /48 to each 'customer' to provide
room for unknown technologies, among other things. I did not wish to endanger
that premise, but current language appears to moot that concern.
To be explicit, to me, "/47 or more addresses, or sub-delegation of any size that
will be individually announced," refers to /47s, /46s, /45s ... and not /48s, /49s,
/50s, etc.
That's not what it says. It says /48s (or longer) should be individually
SWIPped if they're going to be announced. Otherwise there's no reason for the
extra clause.
Blocks in the GRT need to be SWIPped to the announcing party if that's a
different organization from the holder of the larger block.
-Scott
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Leif Sawyer <lsaw...@gci.com> wrote:
Happy Friday, everybody.
As promised, here is the latest rewrite of the draft policy below, and it will
soon be updated at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html
There are two changes noted in the policy statement: the first of which
reflects what seems to be the current
consensus of the PPML regarding netblock sizing; the second is to strike
language that may be read as either restrictive
or non-operational.
----
Problem Statement:
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.
Policy statement:
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 sub-delegation of any size that will be
individually announced,"
and
2) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the NRPM by deleting
the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks"
Comments:
a. Timetable for implementation:
Policy should be adopted as soon as possible.
b. Anything else:
Author Comments:
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.
---
Leif Sawyer
Advisory Council
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
