[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

[John Curran]

On 24 Mar 2020, at 1:20 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net>> wrote:
...
Reserving /40s only for organizations initially expanding into IPv6 from an initial sliver of IPv4 space will help to narrowly address the problem observed by Registration Services while avoiding unintended consequences by accidentally giving a discount for undersized allocations.

ARIN tries to provide as much flexibility as possible in dealing with requests, so it is important that the community document the reasoning behind policy language that constrains the choices available to those requesting resources.   ARIN staff will certainly get asked about such restrictions, so we best understand the motivation.

For this reason, would it be possible for the advocates of the policy to elaborate (on the list) on the perceived "unintended consequences by accidentally giving a discount for undersized allocations”?   (In particular, if a party specifically sought a /40 IPv6 allocation but they held more than /24 of IPv4, is the desire that ARIN would deny the request if they failed to agree to a larger IPv6 allocation or agree to divesture of IPv4 resources down to the /24 maximum?)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20200416/f9645028/attachment.htm>