[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3

[Chris Woodfield]

Hi Scott,

Given that ARIN utilizes a sparse allocation strategy for IPv6 resources (in my organization’s case, we could go from a /32 to a /25 without renumbering), IMO it would not be unreasonable for the allocation to be adjusted down simply by changing the mask and keeping the /36 or /32 unallocated until the sparse allocations are exhausted. Any resources numbered outside the new /40 would need to be renumbered, to be sure, but that’s most likely less work than a complete renumbering.

That said, I’ll leave it up to Registration Services to provide a definitive answer.

-C

> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020, scott at solarnetone.org wrote:
> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> I am in favor of this draft, and am curious as to how resource holders who were not dissuaded by the fee increase will be impacted by the policy change. While they indeed have more address space than /40, they may also not need the additional address space.  Some might prefer the nano-allocation given the lower cost.  Will they be required to change allocations, and renumber, in order to return to 3x-small status and associated rate?
>> 
>> Scott Johnson
>> SolarNetOne, Inc.
>> AS32639
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>