Hi PPML, Similar disclaimer to what Chris has shared, this opinion I am sharing is my own, and not that of the AC.
Although I am not in favor of the policy right now, one question I think we should bear in mind for this discussion is the following. How many years do we hope IPv6 will last? I sincerely hope that our preference as a community and individually is on the order of centuries, not decades. With the Internet poised to go inter-planetary soon (and who knows where in 100 years) I have hopes of a long-lasting durability to IPv6. I do think we should prefer to see very few organizations get up to or more than a /16 as a means of achieving that end. With that said, I don't take a single instance as reason for alarm. As others have said, it would be worth monitoring and being prepared to revisit this question if a large number of very large allocations are given. But for now it seems to be quite exceptional. My personal conclusion for the time being is that I am opposed to the policy and prefer the wait and see approach to discover how many others (if any) will seek to justify a /16. Opposed for now. Matthew Wilder On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 8:47 AM Chris Woodfield <[email protected]> wrote: > Disclaimer - AC Member speaking in my own capacity with no other > affiliations. For the record, I do not support this policy as written. > > I think we’ve got two competing interests, both a bit speculative IMO. > > On one side, opposition to this policy is based on a trust that the number > of organizations that justify a /16 are few and far between, and will not > represent a threat to the IPv6 address supply at any point in time where > IPv6 is in common use. > > One the other, support for the policy seems to be based on two major > concerns: 1. The worry that over time, large numbers of organizations will > request and justify /16 blocks to the point that those allocations *do* > represent an exhaustion threat for IPv6, and 2. A not-unreasonable sense of > wastefulness that the nibble boundary allocation policy imposes when > allocations get to this size. An organization receiving a /16 when they > only need two or three /20s winds up wasting an order of magnitude more > address space than, say, an organization getting a /20 because they need > two /24s. And at these sizes, I can understand people getting > uneasy…particularly if there’s a lingering concern that (like IPv4 /8s > mentioned below) there might be some point where IPv6 exhaustion makes > those huge blocks monetizable. > > TBH I share the sense of wastefulness that these allocations represent, > but I know that’s not based on data, and as such, I’m not going to throw my > support behind this policy based on a feeling. That said, if that’s > something the community agrees we should address, I do not believe that the > solution is to place a lower cap on allocations; I’d argue that a more > reasonable approach to this would be to eliminate the nibble boundary > allocation policy at a certain threshold - (i.e. an organization needing > two /20s gets a /19, not a /16). This would allow organizations that > demonstrate that need to still get their allocations, while avoiding large > amounts of stranded resources that the current policy would impose. > > Thanks, > > -Chris > > On Aug 13, 2024, at 08:17, Matt Erculiani <[email protected]> wrote: > > I’m in the wait and see camp. Opposed for now. > > I think staff has proven to be vigilant about IP space overallocation with > all the practice they’ve had with v4. If they’re even half as strict with > v6 then there’s no actual problem here. > > That said, a /16 is a REALLY big slice of the pie and it might be best to > put some additional parameters around what justifies that large of an > allocation. > > Is /16 the new /8? > > -Matt > > Matt Erculiani > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 08:17 Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> If in practice no organizations can justify that size of block I don't >> think restricting is pramature really. And no one can. >> At least doesn't give any ideas to one that may think about creating a >> unexistant need. >> >> Fernando >> >> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024, 05:26 jordi.palet--- via ARIN-PPML, < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> If any organization can justify the need for a /16, should be able to >>> get it. >>> >>> Even I will say, if any organization can justify, for example, a /12 (I >>> doubt it), should be able to get it. >>> >>> Limiting IPv6 deployments is a non-sense. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Jordi >>> >>> @jordipalet >>> >>> >>> El 12 ago 2024, a las 23:33, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML < >>> [email protected]> escribió: >>> >>> /16 is a reasonable limit; keep the current NRPM. One /16 allocation in >>> nearly a decade does not concern me. /16 allocations were intended to be >>> rare but possible; in fact, I believe the policy is functioning as >>> intended. If we see several additional /16 allocations in the next couple >>> of years, I could be convinced to reconsider my position. But at this >>> point, I think this policy is premature. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 2:12 PM Elizabeth Goodson < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello PPML, >>>> >>>> As lead shepherd on ARIN-2024-8, I'm reaching out for additional >>>> feedback from the community on this policy following the robust discussion >>>> here in June. >>>> >>>> The previous discussion did not come to a clear community >>>> consensus with opinions falling in multiple categories (in no particular >>>> order): >>>> - /20 is a reasonable limit, support the Draft Policy as written >>>> - /16 is a reasonable limit, keep current NRPM >>>> - Allow initial allocations above a certain size that are not on a >>>> nibble boundary (e.g. /19, /18, /17) >>>> - Add clarification about what designs would not justify a certain size >>>> initial allocation (e.g. 6RD) >>>> >>>> Questions for the community: >>>> - Do you support the draft policy as written? >>>> - If not, can the policy be changed so you would support it? What >>>> change(s) do you support? >>>> - Should the community continue to work on the policy or abandon it? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Liz Goodson >>>> >>>> =============== >>>> Problem Statement: >>>> In order to promote aggregation, the NRPM currently allows initial >>>> allocations up to a /16. However, the entire IPv6 address space only >>>> contains 65536 /16s, and the space allocated to IANA for globally routable >>>> purposes only contains 8192 /16s. Therefore, a /16 is a sufficiently large >>>> portion of the IPv6 address space that the goal of conservation starts to >>>> outweigh the goal of aggregation. >>>> >>>> Policy Statement: >>>> 6.5.2.1b: Replace "In no case shall an ISP receive more than a /16 >>>> initial allocation." with "In no case shall a LIR receive more than a /20 >>>> initial allocation." >>>> ================== >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> =============================================== >>> David Farmer Email:[email protected] >>> Networking & Telecommunication Services >>> Office of Information Technology >>> University of Minnesota >>> 2218 University Ave SE >>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2218+University+Ave+SE?entry=gmail&source=g> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> ********************************************** >>> IPv4 is over >>> Are you ready for the new Internet ? >>> http://www.theipv6company.com >>> The IPv6 Company >>> >>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or >>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of >>> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized >>> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this >>> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly >>> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the >>> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or >>> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including >>> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal >>> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this >>> communication and delete it. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. >> > _______________________________________________ > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
