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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jun 27, 2024, at 14:35, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:31 PM David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 4:23 PM William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>> John Curran has already said that ARIN would accept a wide range of
>>> esoteric network designs as justifying an initial /16, provided they
>>> were presented in good faith.
>> 
>> I would support a policy to clarify that 6RD does not justify
>> a /20 or /16.
> 
> Or... and humor me here... we could reduce the cap to something
> sustainable regardless of how folks design their networks and stop
> concerning ourselves with whether they're designing their networks as
> we think they should.

One reason I oppose this approach harkens back to a discussion I had with John B formerly of $CABLECO fame.

In that discussion I was (once again) complaining about their rather stingy IPv6 constraints on the customers, especially residential customers.

John’s response was “In order to run a network with the number of customers we have the way we have to manage our addresses, giving customers /48s would require a /16.”

He said this as if it was an utterly unreasonable thing for $CABLECO to request from ARIN.

I took it as a sign that the /16 cap was almost certainly the correct value.

Owen