[arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy

[George Bonser]

>     Leo> So, let's try this again.  Will your manager approve $0?
> 
> Cost of 10.0.0.0/24 = $0.
> Cost of IPv6, > $0.


As an end user, I recently (mistakenly) asked for and received a /48
(should have been larger).

> Amount owed for this approval: $1250

It cost us $1250 notwithstanding the fact we already have a /21 IPv4
assignment

I had to get justification for that spending.  There was some pushback
in some areas and it went something like this:

Q: Why do we need this?
A: IPv4 addresses are running out and we are growing. Some of our
partners/peers are IPv6 capable. 
Q: I have been hearing that for the past 10 years.
A: Yes but it really, really, really, is this time.

Then we get a /48 which we got based on a lack of understanding of IPv6
practices (we thought IPv6 practice was a /56 per site and not a /48 per
site) which led to

I need to go back and get more address space, I don't know if it is
going to cost us more or not.

Q: We are growing fairly rapidly, is ARIN going to nickel and dime us to
death with requiring us to keep coming back for more of these?
A: Probably.  They seem pretty tight-fisted on address allocation,
still, but there is some policy discussion aimed at simplifying that and
allowing larger initial block assignments.

Turns out in subsequent discussion with ARIN that I will be able to get
a /45 (asked for a /44 but a /45 meets my needs so that is what they
will give me) as I believe a /45 is still a "small" allocation, I think
I can simply have the /48 upgraded to a /45 and not pay the fee again as
the initial /48 was never placed into service.