I like the current LIR process, but I do not like the policy. I suspect
that the draft policy will result in the same process, with some slight
modification of the math, and more allocation of smaller (/36 and /40)
blocks. Is this good? I'm not sure. We want it to be as easy as possible
for LIRs to get IPv6 space to deploy, and we don't want them to have to
renumber. A /32 is not hard to number yourself out of if you try to plan
for growth.
If we are going to keep the distinction between LIR and end-user
allocations in policy, I think it is wise for us to set an automatic
minimum, or a more-definite assignment size than "show us a network
plan"; if we don't put that into policy, ARIN training materials and
business practices could choose it for us: ARIN can prepare a document
on how to draft a network plan, and odds are, that exact plan is what
most new customers will adopt.
Eric C. Landgraf
Virginia Tech
On Jun 25 13:51, 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://www.arin.net/reference/training/resources/ipv6_networkplan.pdf
> . 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://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.
