[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines - version 3
Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com
Fri Aug 24 10:40:58 EDT 2007
To me, the rewrite seems contradictory to 22.214.171.124 Subsequent allocation
criteria. If we say that ARIN will not review allocations of a /48 or
smaller, how can staff review a subsequent request, when they have to
confirm utilization to a /56?
I've never been a big fan of section 126.96.36.199 Assignment Address space
size. It should be up to the LIR/ISP to make those judgement calls as to
the needs of itself and its customer. We don't try to put these
guidelines into IPv4. Allocation practices are based on the criteria to
get more space. If IPv6 subsequent allocations are based on the
utilization of /56 units, then that will drive the allocation
I will concede that many LIR/ISP will never need a second allocation, so
they are looking for some direction as to which way to go. It however,
seems like an odd argument, because if they are never going to need
another allocation, what does it matter how they distribute the
allocation they've been given?
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
michael.dillon at bt.com
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:34 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines -
> Delete the text in 188.8.131.52 and Replace the text in section
> 184.108.40.206 with the following text:
> Assignments by LIRs /48 or smaller will not be reviewed by ARIN.
> Assignments greater than /48 will be reviewed to see if the additional
> space is warranted according to the 0.94 HD ratio policy. If the
> space is not warranted, ARIN will consider the excess space to be
> available for a different assignment, lowering the overall utilization
> score of the LIR.
This seems to apply to second and subsequent allocations but the
language does not clearly tie it into section 6.5.2.
And anyhow, it could be years before there is any significant volume of
requests for second allocations. Why do we need to waste time on this
problem now? For this reason, I am opposed to this policy. Whether
current policy is right or wrong is irrelevant, since the magnitude of
the wrongness is limited to a minor squeak due to the small number of
IPv6 LIR allocations.
If a few dozen LIRs come back in the next two years and ask for a second
/32 and ARIN rubberstamps the requests, it will do no harm to anyone,
even if all of those RIRs have recklessly squandered their first
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN
Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML