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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jun 27, 2024, at 11:12, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 2:16 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 26, 2024, at 06:55, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>> Folks seeking a /16 are doing it with paperwork tigers.
>> 
>> Are there “folks seeking a /16”?
> 
> I know of no imminent plague of unreasonable IPv6 requests. But if one
> organization will do it then two will and if two will then it's hard
> to say where it'll stop.

So far, I haven’t seen any evidence that one organization has done it, at least not with any meaningful level of success.

Only one organization has received a /16 so far and it doesn’t seem to be unreasonable from my point of view.

> What I don't want is for us to see these unreasonable allocations and
> decide we need to tighten the criteria and make the paperwork more of
> a hassle. I'd rather set the cap lower and if someone wants to pay the
> cost of being in the top category under the cap then so be it.
> 
> Implicit in my argument is, of course, that the /16 allocation ARIN
> made was unreasonable, the product of a paperwork tiger divorced from
> genuine use. Convince me I'm wrong if you can.

I think the burden of proof here is on you, Bill… Convince me you’re right if you can. So far, I haven’t seen any evidence to support your claim as yet and my default position is to believe that ARIN staff is pretty diligent in evaluating requests and does not frequently award them to paper tigers.

Owen