[arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy

[Owen DeLong]

On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:37 PM, George Bonser wrote:

>>    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.
> 
That certainly isn't the intent.  ARIN policy for IPv6 is intended to allow you to
apply for that address space you can reasonably justify.

If you don't need more than 256 subnets per site, then, there is nothing wrong
with assigning a /56 per site.  However, if you think you might, then, a /48 per
site is prudent.

> 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.
> 

I'm surprised they won't give you the /44.  We're working on policy to fix that.
All of the IPv6 policies under consideration for the next meeting do rectify
this and cause ARIN to allocate IPv6 on nibble boundaries (or more).

Owen