On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 2:15 PM Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> wrote: > Why is this policy needed if "only a single IPv6 allocation exceeds a /20 in > size"?
Hi Scott, I'd rather have an easy time justifying the IPv6 addresses I need and a hard ceiling if I request a truly unreasonable amount, than a hard time justifying the addresses I need. Which path would you like us to walk? Folks seeking a /16 are doing it with paperwork tigers. They haven't made any attempt at efficient use and we shouldn't be helping them in that failure. I support the proposed policy. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin [email protected] https://bill.herrin.us/ _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
