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

Tue Aug 13 16:05:54 EDT 2024

Hi PPML,

Similar disclaimer to what Chris has shared, this opinion I am sharing is
my own, and not that of the AC.

Although I am not in favor of the policy right now, one question I think we
should bear in mind for this discussion is the following.

How many years do we hope IPv6 will last?

I sincerely hope that our preference as a community and individually is on
the order of centuries, not decades. With the Internet poised to go
inter-planetary soon (and who knows where in 100 years) I have hopes of a
long-lasting durability to IPv6. I do think we should prefer to see
very few organizations get up to or more than a /16 as a means of achieving
that end.

With that said, I don't take a single instance as reason for alarm. As
others have said, it would be worth monitoring and being prepared to
revisit this question if a large number of very large allocations are
given. But for now it seems to be quite exceptional.

My personal conclusion for the time being is that I am opposed to the
policy and prefer the wait and see approach to discover how many others (if
any) will seek to justify a /16.

Opposed for now.

Matthew Wilder

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 8:47 AM Chris Woodfield <chris at semihuman.com> wrote:

> Disclaimer - AC Member speaking in my own capacity with no other
> affiliations. For the record, I do not support this policy as written.
>
> I think we’ve got two competing interests, both a bit speculative IMO.
>
> On one side, opposition to this policy is based on a trust that the number
> of organizations that justify a /16 are few and far between, and will not
> represent a threat to the IPv6 address supply at any point in time where
> IPv6 is in common use.
>
> One the other, support for the policy seems to be based on two major
> concerns: 1. The worry that over time, large numbers of organizations will
> request and justify /16 blocks to the point that those allocations *do*
> represent an exhaustion threat for IPv6, and 2. A not-unreasonable sense of
> wastefulness that the nibble boundary allocation policy imposes when
> allocations get to this size. An organization receiving a /16 when they
> only need two or three /20s winds up wasting an order of magnitude more
> address space than, say, an organization getting a /20 because they need
> two /24s. And at these sizes, I can understand people getting
> uneasy…particularly if there’s a lingering concern that (like IPv4 /8s
> mentioned below) there might be some point where IPv6 exhaustion makes
> those huge blocks monetizable.
>
> TBH I share the sense of wastefulness that these allocations represent,
> but I know that’s not based on data, and as such, I’m not going to throw my
> support behind this policy based on a feeling. That said, if that’s
> something the community agrees we should address, I do not believe that the
> solution is to place a lower cap on allocations; I’d argue that a more
> reasonable approach to this would be to eliminate the nibble boundary
> allocation policy at a certain threshold - (i.e. an organization needing
> two /20s gets a /19, not a /16). This would allow organizations that
> demonstrate that need to still get their allocations, while avoiding large
> amounts of stranded resources that the current policy would impose.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Chris
>
> On Aug 13, 2024, at 08:17, Matt Erculiani <merculiani at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I’m in the wait and see camp. Opposed for now.
>
> I think staff has proven to be vigilant about IP space overallocation with
> all the practice they’ve had with v4. If they’re even half as strict with
> v6 then there’s no actual problem here.
>
> That said, a /16 is a REALLY big slice of the pie and it might be best to
> put some additional parameters around what justifies that large of an
> allocation.
>
> Is /16 the new /8?
>
> -Matt
>
> Matt Erculiani
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 08:17 Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If in practice no organizations can justify that size of block I don't
>> think restricting  is pramature really. And no one can.
>> At least doesn't give any ideas to one that may think about creating a
>> unexistant need.
>>
>> Fernando
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024, 05:26 jordi.palet--- via ARIN-PPML, <
>> arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> If any organization can justify the need for a /16, should be able to
>>> get it.
>>>
>>> Even I will say, if any organization can justify, for example, a /12 (I
>>> doubt it), should be able to get it.
>>>
>>> Limiting IPv6 deployments is a non-sense.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jordi
>>>
>>> @jordipalet
>>>
>>>
>>> El 12 ago 2024, a las 23:33, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML <
>>> arin-ppml at arin.net> escribió:
>>>
>>> /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.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 2:12 PM Elizabeth Goodson <
>>> elizabeth.goodson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello PPML,
>>>>
>>>> As lead shepherd on ARIN-2024-8, I'm reaching out for additional
>>>> feedback from the community on this policy following the robust discussion
>>>> here in June.
>>>>
>>>> The previous discussion did not come to a clear community
>>>> consensus with opinions falling in multiple categories (in no particular
>>>> order):
>>>> - /20 is a reasonable limit, support the Draft Policy as written
>>>> - /16 is a reasonable limit, keep current NRPM
>>>> - Allow initial allocations above a certain size that are not on a
>>>> nibble boundary (e.g. /19, /18, /17)
>>>> - Add clarification about what designs would not justify a certain size
>>>> initial allocation (e.g. 6RD)
>>>>
>>>> Questions for the community:
>>>> - Do you support the draft policy as written?
>>>> - If not, can the policy be changed so you would support it? What
>>>> change(s) do you support?
>>>> - Should the community continue to work on the policy or abandon it?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Liz Goodson
>>>>
>>>> ===============
>>>> Problem Statement:
>>>> In order to promote aggregation, the NRPM currently allows initial
>>>> allocations up to a /16. However, the entire IPv6 address space only
>>>> contains 65536 /16s, and the space allocated to IANA for globally routable
>>>> purposes only contains 8192 /16s. Therefore, a /16 is a sufficiently large
>>>> portion of the IPv6 address space that the goal of conservation starts to
>>>> outweigh the goal of aggregation.
>>>>
>>>> Policy Statement:
>>>> 6.5.2.1b: Replace "In no case shall an ISP receive more than a /16
>>>> initial allocation." with "In no case shall a LIR receive more than a /20
>>>> initial allocation."
>>>> ==================
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ===============================================
>>> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
>>> Networking & Telecommunication Services
>>> Office of Information Technology
>>> University of Minnesota
>>> 2218 University Ave SE
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2218+University+Ave+SE?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>       Phone: 612-626-0815
>>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
>>> ===============================================
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **********************************************
>>> IPv4 is over
>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>>> http://www.theipv6company.com
>>> The IPv6 Company
>>>
>>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
>>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
>>> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
>>> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
>>> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
>>> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
>>> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
>>> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
>>> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
>>> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
>>> communication and delete it.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20240813/97f53c07/attachment-0001.htm>