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

[Gerry George]

Just for clarity, are you considering that there may not be a need for
shorter than /20 (which the evaluation exercise may determine or inform)?

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024, 4:26 pm William Herrin, <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 11:26 AM Gerry George <george.gerry at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hi Gerry,
>
> I recall asking for a proponent of shorter-than-/20 to produce a
> (fictitious) justification for a /19 that we could evaluate as a group
> and reach consensus that yeah, if that request came through backed by
> real infrastructure, it was not so wasteful as to be subjectively
> offensive. No one took me up on it. If we can't, as a group, imagine
> such a large yet reasonable allocation, why should we allow it?
>
> If I didn't ask, I'm asking now.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> bill at herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20240815/a98ba048/attachment.htm>