[arin-ppml] Comments: Draft Policy ARIN-2025-7

[Lily Edinam Botsyoe]

Hi Eric,

Thank you for this input. Your suggestion to change the wording is well
noted. Regarding your broader point on merging sections 6.5.8 and 6.5.2:
it’s a valid question for the community. However, as you noted, that would
likely require a separate policy proposal. For now, we'll record your
phrasing suggestion, and submit the revision to be published for
community feedback.

Best regards,

Lily and Leif

On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 5:29 PM Eric C. Landgraf <echarlie at vt.edu> wrote:

> > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 09:47:52 -0500
> > From: Lily Edinam Botsyoe <lilybotsyoe at gmail.com>
> > To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Comments: Draft Policy ARIN-2025-7
> >
> > *Clarifications and Support*
> >
> >    - *Policy Support:* One member explicitly stated *they do not
> support* the
> >    current proposed change, suggesting a more fundamental cleanup is
> needed.
> >
> >    - *Current Policy:* Under existing policy, an end-user single-site
> >    allocation is a /48, while an ISP must receive at least a /40.
> >    - From Staff:
> >       - Historically, RSD has not experienced any problems with the
> >       existing policy text as the policy states that organizations may
> receive an
> >       initial assignment of /48, and requests for larger than a /48 are
> based on
> >       the number of sites in the organization?s network.  It is
> understood the
> >       75% threshold applies only to requests larger than /48.
>
> Regarding the general language and the staff review, I'll note that the
> paragraph *before* the one under discussion is critical to
> interpretation:
>
> | Organizations that meet at least one of the initial assignment criteria
> | above are eligible to receive an initial assignment of /48. Requests for
> | larger initial assignments, reasonably justified with supporting
> | documentation, will be evaluated based on the number of sites in an
> | organization’s network and the number of subnets needed to support any
> | extra-large sites defined below.
>
> The interpretation is pretty clear here, and the second paragraph only
> needs a pretty subtle language shift (as proposed) to improve overall
> clarity. Personally, I think this could be simply changed from:
>
> | The initial assignment size will be determined by the number of sites
> | justified below.
>
> to
>
> | Larger initial assignment sizes...
>
> Which would clearly indicate that you need to reference the prior
> paragraph. I also suspect this would be an editorial change.
>
> I think there's a fair question whether 6.5.8 and 6.5.2 should be
> merged and cleaned up: is the distinction between an LIR and an End-user
> valuable in IPv6 allocation, and do we expect organizations requesting
> resources to *know* which they are? And I think this was what a lot of
> the conversation about initial allocation sizes were. But I also think
> that or changing the initial allocation size would be a policy proposal
> distinct from this one.
>
>         Eric C. Landgraf
>         Virginia Tech
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20251216/57dee9b8/attachment.htm>