On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 12:23 PM ARIN <[email protected]> wrote: > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2025_6/ > > Draft Policy 2ARIN-2025-6: ARIN-prop-345: Fix formula in 6.5.2.1c > > Problem Statement: > > Sections 6.5.2.1 explains the initial IPv6 ISP/LIR allocation in a way that > is difficult to follow and the formula in section (c) does not match the > remainder of the text. > > Policy Statement: > > In 6.5.2.1c, replace: > > "This calculation can be summarized as /N where N = P-(X+Y) and P is the > organization’s Provider Allocation Unit X is a multiple of 4 greater than > 4/3*serving sites and Y is a multiple of 4 greater than 4/3*end sites served > by largest serving site." > > with: > > "This calculation can be summarized as /N where N = P-(X+Y) and P is the > organization’s Provider Allocation Unit, X is a multiple of 4 greater than > 4/3*log_2(serving sites) and Y is a multiple of 4 greater than 4/3*log_2(end > sites served by largest serving site). > > In 2.15 and 2.16, replace "provider assignment unit" with "provider > allocation unit."
Hi folks, At Friday's AC meeting, I'd like to advance this draft to recommended status. Section 6.5.2.1 determines the initial ISP _maximum entitlement_ to IPv6 addresses. ISPs can, of course, request fewer than this maximum. The draft substitutes the logarithm because the equation is supposed to provide a CIDR netmask rather than a numerical count of subnets. It also makes the "provider allocation unit" language match up throughout the NRPM. As the shepherd, it is my assessment that this text is impartial and technically sound. It makes only neutral corrections to existing policy. As the shepherd, it is also my assessment that it has achieved general consent within the community as written. I base that assessment on feedback received both here on the mailing list and at the October ARIN meeting in Texas (reported here: https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2025-November/038182.html). I note that a number of respondents also expressed a desire to simplify section 6.5.2.1 in its entirety, excising complicated math. Where specifics were suggested, they moved in enough different directions that as the AC shepherd I recommend further development happen via a new policy proposal rather than drag this one away from consensus. Perfect being the enemy of the good. If you believe the text as written would make bad policy and should not advance, I ask you to take some time and state your case so that it can be discussed and debated here in public ahead of the AC meeting. Regards, Bill Herrin _______________________________________________ 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.
