Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

> On 29 Jun 2024, at 02:57, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:26 AM Tyler O'Meara wrote: > Hi David, > > If I may, why do you believe nibble alignment is important? > > Nibble alignment is important because it significantly reduces operational >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

On 6/28/2024 12:17 PM, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML wrote: On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:01 AM William Herrin > wrote: On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 4:17 PM David Farmer mailto:far...@umn.edu>> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 5:04 PM William Herrin

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

I would argue that the number of POPs and the number of customers per POP in the largest $CABLECO in the US probably warrants a /16 even though they have not received one. If they had properly applied for one, they might not be in the current unfortunate situation where their residential

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

> On Jun 27, 2024, at 14:35, William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:31 PM David Farmer wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 4:23 PM William Herrin wrote: >>> John Curran has already said that ARIN would accept a wide range of >>> esoteric network designs as justifying an initial

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

> On Jun 27, 2024, at 14:30, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 4:23 PM William Herrin > wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:19 PM David Farmer > > wrote: >> > To qualify for a /16 or /20, you must show your

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

> On Jun 27, 2024, at 11:49, William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:27 AM John Santos wrote: >> I don't know the use case, and I don't >> think anyone else here does or if they do, they haven't described it. > > I don't know the use case that was documented for the /16

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

> On Jun 27, 2024, at 11:12, William Herrin wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 2:16 PM Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Jun 26, 2024, at 06:55, William Herrin wrote: >>> Folks seeking a /16 are doing it with paperwork tigers. >> >> Are there “folks seeking a /16”? > > I know of no imminent plague

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:50 AM Tyler O'Meara wrote: > It's worth noting that the nibble boundary requirement doesn't apply to > subsequent allocations that result in expansions currently. Hi Tyler, The exception proves the rule: "If an LIR has already reached a /12 or more, ARIN will allocate

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

Hi Bill and David, Those are the 2 reasons for nibble alignment that I was aware of. Personally, I think once we get to a large enough allocation size those reasons aren't worth the wasted address space, but as that's not the purpose of this policy so we should probably agree to disagree on that

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 9:27 AM Tyler O'Meara wrote: > If I may, why do you believe nibble alignment is important? Hi Tyler, Nibble boundaries offer two valuable characteristics in IPv6: First, it simplifies reverse DNS delegation since ip6.arpa is implemented on nibble boundaries. Second, it

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

Greetings to the list! David, you incorrectly assume this is IPv4 thinking instead of what it really is - a desire to streamline the process while providing reasonable limits. It is true these limits were based on my own observations and belief a maximum of a /28 initial allocation with _1

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

This is not IPv4; please stop the IPv4 thinking. We don't need an IPv6 version of slow start, where you get only a /32 and justify more only by immediate need or growth over time. At the same time, we can't ignore the conservation of IPv6 address space. However, the conservation of routing slots

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

Hi Michael, I selected a /20 because I think that is the "happy medium" you refer to; it's large enough that the vast vast majority of LIRs should fit in it (so that ideally LIRs only need a single allocation, helping both the routing table and not needing to inundate ARIN with tickets), while

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:26 AM Tyler O'Meara wrote: > Hi David, > > If I may, why do you believe nibble alignment is important? Nibble alignment is important because it significantly reduces operational complexity. Reverse DNS delegations for IPv6 are made on nibble boundaries. Also, humans

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

Greetings to the List! Thank you Tyler for your clarifications, though I am curious why /20 was chosen and not /24 (16 million /48s) or even /28 (1 million /48s). I wonder if stating an initial maximum allocation is really necessary. The minimum allocation is a /32 (64 thousand /48s) according

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:01 AM William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 4:17 PM David Farmer wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 5:04 PM William Herrin wrote: > >> we know a /16 has been allocated. We can't know how they justified it > >> because that information is private. Can you

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

On Jun 28, 2024, at 11:01, William Herrin wrote: ... Your seeming reluctance to offer a hypothetical suggests a potentially good approach here: require any registrant requesting in excess of a /24 of IPv6 address space to survive open publication and public comment on their justification and

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 4:17 PM David Farmer wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 5:04 PM William Herrin 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