Agreed. While there are a wide range of opinions on where this line belongs, The /47 line appears to have the most consensus, and has my support.
-Chris > On Aug 15, 2017, at 11:03 AM, David Huberman <dav...@panix.com> wrote: > > Very well done, everyone! Strongly support this draft. > > Kudos to Albert Erdmann and the AC shepherds for their leadership on this > proposal. > > >> On Aug 15, 2017, at 1:06 PM, ARIN <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 >> >> 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 >> >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html >> >> Regards, >> >> Sean Hopkins >> Policy Analyst >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> >> >> >> 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 >> subdelegation 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" >> >> and >> >> 3) Add new section 6.5.5.4 "Downstream Registration Requests" to the NRPM >> that reads "If the downstream recipient of a netblock ( a /64 or more >> addresses) requests publishing in ARIN's registration database, the ISP must >> register the netblock, regardless of size." >> >> 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 ad m > inistrative burden of 100% customer registration of IPv6 customers is > unreasonable, when such is not required for those customers receiving only > IPv4 connections. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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.
