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

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 4:17 PM David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 5:04 PM William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> we know a /16 has been allocated. We can't know how they justified it
>> because that information is private. Can you produce a -notional-
>> justification for a /16 that we all agree is -reasonable-?
>
> The current policy has been in effect since ARIN-2011-3 was implemented[..]

Yes, yes, only one registrant has thus far had the chutzpah to seek
and acquire a /16. I have already acknowledged the truth of that
claim; you need not continue repeating it.

Perhaps you could stop deflecting the question I asked you in return:
Do you, David Farmer, believe there exists a justification for an
*initial* allocation of a /16 of IPv6 addresses which would withstand
public scrutiny? An allocation to an organization which has never
before held ARIN IPv6 addresses. If you do, would you care to offer us
such a hypothetical to examine?

If indeed there is no justification that would survive public
scrutiny, then permitting such an allocation only invites what the
public would consider abuse. Shrouding such justifications in standard
secrecy further invites quite reasonable suspicion of the ARIN process
as well.

Your seeming reluctance to offer a hypothetical suggests a potentially
good approach here: require any registrant requesting in excess of a
/24 of IPv6 address space to survive open publication and public
comment on their justification and supporting materials and,
subsequent to public comment, win the approval of the Board of
Trustees.

Those satisfied with a less audacious quantity of IPv6 addresses would
continue to be afforded the more private process that exists today.


Regards,
Bill Herrin



--
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/