[arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy

[Tim Durack]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> 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

The current end-site assignment policy seems vague. We had a similar
experience, applying for a /45, realizing it was too small, applying
again for a /41. After some back and forth, ARIN assigned us the /41
(no additional fee, which was fair.)

We are a reasonable size campus/enterprise, spanning multiple distinct
locations. We also have a good size residential Internet user base. We
are increasingly structured more like a service provider, as such
tends to scale well. Even a /41 seems small, when you start carving it
up into /48s. A /48 per-pop for infrastructure, a /48 per-pop per
enterprise customer, /56s per residential customer. I would like to
avoid having to keep going back to ARIN. Plus the thought of
renumbering is a non-starter, even with IPv6.

I like the simplified approach that has been outlined by others:

/48 no questions asked.
/40 for multi-homed organizations.
/32 once you push the limits of your /40.

-- 
Tim:>