[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-3: Better IPv6 Allocations for ISPs - Last Call

[Owen DeLong]

On May 2, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:05 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 13 April 2011 and decided to
>> send a revised version of the following draft policy to last call:
>> 
>>  ARIN-2011-3: Better IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
>> 
> ...
>> 7. Adds language to limit initial allocations to no more than a /16
>> (6.5.2.1(b)) and to limit subsequent allocations to no larger than a /12
>> (an organization may apply for additional /12s, but, no single
>> allocation larger than a /12 can be made at one time) (6.5.2.1(e))
>> (community concern)
> 
> I am opposed to this draft policy.  The idea of handing out /12 blocks,
> and potentially *multiple* /12 blocks to an organization is ludicrous if
> this protocol is to have any hope for longevity.  :(
> I think the largest block that should be allocatable should be a /20;
> that would still allow for 6rd deployments using /56 allocations for
> end sites, which is reasonable for a transition technology; if they
> want full /48s, they can start with a /56 during the 6rd period, and
> then once their upstream goes fully native, they can get a natively
> routed /48.
> With a /20 as the shortest prefix allocatable to an ISP, that still
> allows for a million such allocations, which is likely to last us
> considerably longer than the 4096 /12 blocks espoused by this
> proposal.
> 
> Matt


Under this policy, it is unlikely that anyone not currently in the
ARIN XX-Large organizational category would be able to
justify a /16, let alone a /12. If I recall correctly (I can't find
the slide right now) at a previous ARIN meeting, there were
something on the order of 10 such organizations in the
entire region.

I do not see this as a significant risk and limiting those
organizations to /20s will significantly disaggregate IPv6.

Owen