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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jun 26, 2024, at 06:55, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 2:15 PM Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why is this policy needed if "only a single IPv6 allocation exceeds a /20 in size"?
> 
> Hi Scott,
> 
> I'd rather have an easy time justifying the IPv6 addresses I need and
> a hard ceiling if I request a truly unreasonable amount, than a hard
> time justifying the addresses I need. Which path would you like us to
> walk?

This is a false dichotomy. I think it is pretty easy to justify a pretty significant amount of IPv6 space from ARIN and I’ve never had a hard time getting an IPv6 allocation of appropriate size for any of my clients.

I’ve had to offer up some detailed explanations when the allocation was larger than a /28, and the amount of scrutiny does seem to go up in inverse proportion to prefix length, but I think that’s completely legitimate and as it should be. A /32 requires little more than a credible application. A /28 requires a fairly perfunctory explanation for why a /32 isn’t enough. Beyond that, you start getting into deeper inspections and more detailed review of your network plans.  I’ve gotten a few /24s for clients (at least 1 of which was an initial application and at least 1 of which was an additional allocation beyond a nearly fully utilized /32). I have no reason to believe that ARIN is applying undue scrutiny to IPv6 applications, nor do I have any reason to believe that they are being overly lax in evaluating IPv6 requests.

There is a hard ceiling and it’s currently set at /16.

> Folks seeking a /16 are doing it with paperwork tigers. They haven't
> made any attempt at efficient use and we shouldn't be helping them in
> that failure.

Are there “folks seeking a /16”? I only know for sure that one application for a /16 has been made and certainly only one has been approved so far. Unless you have greater knowledge of that application than I do, I think your claim of “paperwork tigers” [sic] is speculative at best.

If you do have evidence to support this claim, please present it.

Owen