[arin-ppml] IPv6 policy: n-year planning horizon?

[Eric C. Landgraf]

I do not think we need multiple planning horizons. Considering the
draft policy, I think it would be best to just require that the network
plan include projected growth for the next 5 years. Reserved use and
expansion space are standard parts of a network plan. An organization
that does not expect to grow doesn't need to do anything, while an
organization with clear growth targets can support a larger request.
Most allocations will accomodate some amount of growth by virtue of
nibble rounding alone.

	Eric C. Landgraf
	Virginia Tech

On Jun 25 13:59, 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 the policy take n-year
> projections into account or should it be something like current
> demonstrated need and ARIN automatically adds a large pad?
> 
> 
> Three and five year IP address use projections, and requirements to
> use addresses within a period of time are a tradition held over from
> IPv4 policy. With IPv4 ARIN tries to balance consumption of two scarce
> resources: IPv4 address blocks and Internet BGP routing table slots.
> Every IP address one registrant is granted is an IP address another
> registrant can't have. But, every discontiguous address block
> allocated to the same organization is another slot in the BGP table
> they will consume, whether or not their network engineering requires
> it.
> 
> So, ARIN tries to allocate enough addresses at a time to meet the
> organization's reasonably foreseeable need. They were going to come
> back for more anyway, and this way they don't needlessly consume BGP
> slots.
> 
> These sort of multi-year planning horizons used to justify ARIN
> address grants are present in the IPv6 policies as well, both in the
> current section 6.5 and in draft 2026-2.
> 
> Are they needed? Are they wanted?
> 
> If we don't go too crazy, we have enough IPv6 addresses for everybody,
> far into the foreseeable future. If anything, the annual ARIN fee is
> enough to suppress careless consumption. We still have limited space
> in the BGP table. In principle, ARIN doesn't ever want registrants
> coming back for more IPv6 addresses. To the maximum extent practical,
> they want that first allocation to be the only one so that network
> engineering alone drives how much of the BGP table the registrant
> consumes.
> 
> What are your thoughts? Continue to use n-year planning horizons?
> Replace that with language around avoidance of a second allocation? A
> third option? 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.