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

[John Curran]

Bill - 

Indeed - there are wide range of technically esoteric network designs that could be used to justify a significantly sized Pv6 address block, and making such a request in good faith will result in a rigorous interactive process with ARIN’s registration services team that should culminate in approval. 

(Fraudulent requests are a different matter, and one would have to be fairly brave to engage in subterfuge in order to obtain an oversize block given the risks of reclamation by ARIN should it be determined later that the block was fraudulently obtained.) 

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

> On Jun 27, 2024, at 3:19 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 12:14 PM Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
>> I would argue that it is not needed for 6rd as you can pack
>> things much denser with proper 6rd parameter management.
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Of course it isn't needed for 6rd. That's not the question. The
> question is: does such use technically justify addresses under current
> ARIN policy? The answer, as I understand it, is: yes. If I happen to
> have a couple dozen disjoint IPv4 allocations and I want to simplify
> my 6rd deployment by throwing addresses at it, I have met the
> requirements for an ARIN IPv6 allocation that throws 32 bits at 6rd.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> -- 
> William Herrin
> bill at herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
> _______________________________________________
> 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.