There should be a quantity of IPv6 address space that a small and/or new operator can obtain with as little paperwork as possible (automatic grant = good, network plan + technical justification = bad). We want operators to deploy IPv6, so we want it to be simple to obtain the address space necessary to do that. The abundance of address space makes this possible and reasonable.

Since the the size and sophistication of organizations requesting an initial allocation probably approximates a power law---because of course it would---what prefix length would be appropriate to meet the 80% level?

The world has already agreed on a lower bound of /48. The status quo is /32. I'll go out on a limb and say that A) those are the best options, and B) a /48 is too small. The next best alternatives in descending order of preference are /40, /36, and /44.

The status quo seems pretty reasonable to me.



On 2026-06-25 16:51, 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: Do you like ARIN's current IPv6
allocation _process_ for ISPs or would you prefer to see it change? I
specifically mean the process ARIN has implemented, not the policy
text which is a mess.

Roughly speaking, ARIN's current process for granting IPv6 addresses
to ISPs works like this:

/32? Granted.

More than a /32? Count your customers and sites, then consult the
charts on page 3 of
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.arin.net/reference/training/resources/ipv6_networkplan.pdf__;!!IBzWLUs!Va175o4FFdcX9FiwJ7TBdDpWdR1YG12q-gDp48rUT7HSKTnBV158n5lshMROOlEJ-bqdAQqxvNOAong$
. Same or longer CIDR netmask? Granted.

Still more? Write a network plan and offer a technical justification
why you need so much IPv6 space.


Draft 2026-2 changes the above so that every ISP writes a network plan
with a technical justification for the number of IPv6 addresses
requested, including a /32. No automatic /32 grant. No "count your
customers and sites" grant.


Do you like either approach? Can you describe a third approach you'd
like better? 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 ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml__;!!IBzWLUs!Va175o4FFdcX9FiwJ7TBdDpWdR1YG12q-gDp48rUT7HSKTnBV158n5lshMROOlEJ-bqdAQqxFXYKmJA$
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to