[arin-ppml] Request for Feedback: Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8 Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

[Roman Tatarnikov]

I'm with David. And if I remember right, there was already a discussion
related to this months ago.

The key for a policy is to have a problem statement. While this policy says
that the "problem" is the allocations of huge chunks of IPs, it's not a real
problem because those "huge chunks" are not allocated as often. I understand
that we're trying to future-proof here, but a single in a blue moon allocation
only shows that the existing policy is working fine. As in, it required and
was very critical to justification for such a huge block. So it's not really a
problem - it did what it was designed to do, instead of just giving /16 to
anyone who asks without asking them any questions.

On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 04:33:54PM -0500, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> /16 is a reasonable limit; keep the current NRPM. One /16 allocation in
> nearly a decade does not concern me. /16 allocations were intended to be
> rare but possible; in fact, I believe the policy is functioning as
> intended. If we see several additional /16 allocations in the next couple
> of years, I could be convinced to reconsider my position. But at this
> point, I think this policy is premature.

-- 
Roman V Tatarnikov | https://linkedin.com/in/rtatarnikov
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20240813/9f9efc3e/attachment.sig>