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

[Tyler O'Meara]

Hi David,

If I may, why do you believe nibble alignment is important? I agree that it is
generally preferable, but once we get to requests of a certain size (I would say
>/24, personally), I think the benefits are outweighed by conservation concerns.
John Sweeting at ARIN 53, as well as Chris Woodfield earlier in this email
thread, also proposed this as a potential policy change.

That said, I believe that even were we to relax the nibble requirement that this
particular policy is still worth pursuing as well.

Tyler

On Fri, 2024-06-28 at 11:17 -0500, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:01 AM William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> > 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?
> > 
> 
>  
> I considered this question back in 2011 when the question of /16 or /20 came
> up in the discussion of ARIN-2011-3. I concluded it was possible to justify a
> /16. Let me put the question slightly differently: Is it possible to justify
> more than a /20? There were already /19s allocated by other RIRs, so I
> concluded that it is possible to justify more than a /20. I also believe
> nibble alignment is important, so I support /16 as the maximum allocation.
> Nevertheless, such /16 allocation should be rare; one in a decade aligns with
> that belief.
> 
> However, those who think it is impossible to justify a /16 for an initial
> allocation should support this policy.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota   
> 2218 University Ave SE        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.