> On Jul 14, 2025, at 10:48 AM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Assuming /48 as the PAU is not true to the policy. The policy was intended to > encourage LIR/ISPs to implement /48 PAUs by limiting the size of allocations > to providers that issued smaller end site allocations.
Owen - If a provider were to indicate during its initial IPv6 request that it intends to use a smaller minimum end-user allocation size, the policy can operate as you describe. In that case, staff will explain the impact that customer allocation size has on serving site calculations and overall qualification. If the ISP chooses to adopt a larger provider allocation unit, that will be reflected in the justification and the resulting allocation. That said, ARIN does not control what providers ultimately deploy as their end-user allocation size. Further, two of the qualification paths for subsequent expansions of IPv6 allocations do not involve the minimum provider allocation unit at all. > It saddens me to learn that ARIN has implemented the policy in a manner that > contravenes the clear language of the policy defining PAUs. As Mr. Sweeting noted, staff do discuss customer allocation size and its implications with first-time IPv6 requestors. All ISPs receive at least a /32 IPv6 allocation unless they request less, and the serving-site calculation primarily affects those seeking more than a /32 in their initial allocation. Note that subsequent allocations may be justified without application of the provider allocation unit, for example a single serving site exceeding 90 percent utilization. > I sincerely hope ARIN will correct this, though at this point, it’s likely > too late to have meaningful impact. There is nothing to correct, unless you wish ARIN to engage in enforcement activities against ISPs that don’t meet your expectations of minimum allocation unit. For example, if an existing ISP should decide to lower their minimum customer allocation unit from /56 to /60, are you suggesting that ARIN seek rejustification of their present IPv6 resource holdings? We can only go on information provided during the initial request, and have not been directed by the community to meddle in their ongoing customer engineering decisions in the manner you seem to suggest. > For example, a certain large $CABLECO in the US issued /60s to their > residential customers, so their PAU should be assumed to be /60 and not /48. See above – If indeed the community wants ARIN more involved in enforcement of provider minimum allocation size, that can be done but would need to be quite explicit in policy given the consequences that could result. If that’s not the case, then the current policy text suffices – and is being implemented as written, aside from known incorrect “summary formula”. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers _______________________________________________ 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.
