[arin-ppml] IPv6 policy: reservations?

[Eric C. Landgraf]

I think reservation should be a matter of ARIN business practice and not
be embedded in policy. The draft policy provides for subsequent
allocations and advises ARIN to expand allocations where possible. If
ARIN business practices initially allow for a byte of expansion and they
backfill as needed, that would be appropriate. ARIN reserving space
should not require it to go back to the IANA for another allocation.

	Eric C. Landgraf
	Virginia Tech

On Jun 25 14:20, 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: Should ARIN continue to reserve a
> larger IPv6 block than allocated to allow for expansion?
> 
> The policy currently calls for reserving up to the next nibble
> boundary in allocations so that registrants can expand their holdings
> by changing the netmask up to 16x the initial number of addresses.
> This way you can get the addresses you need now at the fee you're
> willing to pay now but still grow significantly later on before
> needing a discontiguous allocation which would require you consume
> another BGP slot.
> 
> Is this the right amount of reservation? Should there be more? None?
> 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://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.