[arin-ppml] IPv6 policy: ISP process?

[John W. O'Brien]

There should be a quantity of IPv6 address space that a small and/or new 
operator can obtain with as little paperwork as possible (automatic 
grant = good, network plan + technical justification = bad). We want 
operators to deploy IPv6, so we want it to be simple to obtain the 
address space necessary to do that. The abundance of address space makes 
this possible and reasonable.

Since the the size and sophistication of organizations requesting an 
initial allocation probably approximates a power law---because of course 
it would---what prefix length would be appropriate to meet the 80% level?

The world has already agreed on a lower bound of /48. The status quo is 
/32. I'll go out on a limb and say that A) those are the best options, 
and B) a /48 is too small. The next best alternatives in descending 
order of preference are /40, /36, and /44.

The status quo seems pretty reasonable to me.



On 2026-06-25 16:51, William Herrin wrote:
> Howdy,
> 
> I didn't see any feedback on the draft policy rewriting section 6.5,
> so I want to step back and solicit your opinions on what ARIN's IPv6
> policies should become. I'm going to ask some questions and break them
> into separate message threads so that they can be followed separately
> according to your interest.
> 
> The question for this thread is: Do you like ARIN's current IPv6
> allocation _process_ for ISPs or would you prefer to see it change? I
> specifically mean the process ARIN has implemented, not the policy
> text which is a mess.
> 
> Roughly speaking, ARIN's current process for granting IPv6 addresses
> to ISPs works like this:
> 
> /32? Granted.
> 
> More than a /32? Count your customers and sites, then consult the
> charts on page 3 of
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.arin.net/reference/training/resources/ipv6_networkplan.pdf__;!!IBzWLUs!Va175o4FFdcX9FiwJ7TBdDpWdR1YG12q-gDp48rUT7HSKTnBV158n5lshMROOlEJ-bqdAQqxvNOAong$
> . Same or longer CIDR netmask? Granted.
> 
> Still more? Write a network plan and offer a technical justification
> why you need so much IPv6 space.
> 
> 
> Draft 2026-2 changes the above so that every ISP writes a network plan
> with a technical justification for the number of IPv6 addresses
> requested, including a /32. No automatic /32 grant. No "count your
> customers and sites" grant.
> 
> 
> Do you like either approach? Can you describe a third approach you'd
> like better? Your views are respectfully requested.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> _______________________________________________
> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml__;!!IBzWLUs!Va175o4FFdcX9FiwJ7TBdDpWdR1YG12q-gDp48rUT7HSKTnBV158n5lshMROOlEJ-bqdAQqxFXYKmJA$
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 236 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20260625/fb3af188/attachment.sig>