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

[Eric C. Landgraf]

> 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