[ppml] IPv6 Assignment Guidelines, Straw Man #2

David Schwartz davids at webmaster.com
Mon Aug 20 15:09:54 EDT 2007

> I don't believe any LIRs should be given more than one PI block from
> which to allocate PA space.
> And, as such, this has two requirements to be a reasonable suggestion:
>     * LIRs should be free to request PI space (the one block they get)
>       that meets their forseeable needs (10 years at least).
>     * LIRs should be free to assign PA space from their PI block as they
>       see fit, with no further oversight needed
> ARIN staff should never need to evaluate anything other than initial IPv6
> requests, and should be extremely lenient in allocating those. Any
> justification that passes the giggle test, should be fine.

I think this is going in the right direction, but I think it might go too
far. I completely agree that more radical thinking is needed in the IPv6
world because addresses simply are not scarce and irrational rationing will
cost the community more than any conceivable benefit.

Specifically, I agree that:

1) It is largely senseless to have policies for small allocations from an
ISP to their single-homed end users. There is simply no reason to care. I
think we pretty much all already agree that this is so at the /48 level.

2) Routing slots are expensive, not address space. With the huge problem of
address space conservation removed, we should be able to do a much better
job at conserving routing slots.

3) IPv6 allocation can be based on foreseeable need for a decade. This means
both from regional registries to LIRs and from LIRs to customers.

But I disagree strongly that a hard and fast "one allocation" rule makes
sense. I also do not agree that you can have a need-based assignment policy
without any rules for what constitutes need. There will have to be
additional allocations and that means that sub-allocations will have to be
reviewed. I don't think you can get around that.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list