Hi David, If I may, why do you believe nibble alignment is important? I agree that it is generally preferable, but once we get to requests of a certain size (I would say >/24, personally), I think the benefits are outweighed by conservation concerns. John Sweeting at ARIN 53, as well as Chris Woodfield earlier in this email thread, also proposed this as a potential policy change.
That said, I believe that even were we to relax the nibble requirement that this particular policy is still worth pursuing as well. Tyler On Fri, 2024-06-28 at 11:17 -0500, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:01 AM William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 4:17 PM David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 5:04 PM William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > we know a /16 has been allocated. We can't know how they justified it > > > > because that information is private. Can you produce a -notional- > > > > justification for a /16 that we all agree is -reasonable-? > > > > > > The current policy has been in effect since ARIN-2011-3 was > > > implemented[..] > > > > Yes, yes, only one registrant has thus far had the chutzpah to seek > > and acquire a /16. I have already acknowledged the truth of that > > claim; you need not continue repeating it. > > > > Perhaps you could stop deflecting the question I asked you in return: > > Do you, David Farmer, believe there exists a justification for an > > *initial* allocation of a /16 of IPv6 addresses which would withstand > > public scrutiny? An allocation to an organization which has never > > before held ARIN IPv6 addresses. If you do, would you care to offer us > > such a hypothetical to examine? > > > > > I considered this question back in 2011 when the question of /16 or /20 came > up in the discussion of ARIN-2011-3. I concluded it was possible to justify a > /16. Let me put the question slightly differently: Is it possible to justify > more than a /20? There were already /19s allocated by other RIRs, so I > concluded that it is possible to justify more than a /20. I also believe > nibble alignment is important, so I support /16 as the maximum allocation. > Nevertheless, such /16 allocation should be rare; one in a decade aligns with > that belief. > > However, those who think it is impossible to justify a /16 for an initial > allocation should support this policy. > > Thanks. > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:[email protected] > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
