Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2025-7

---

Current Text (20 May 2026)

AC Assessment of Conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy

Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2025-7 conforms to the principles of the ARIN Policy Development Process. If adopted, this policy fixes a math loophole in NRPM Section 6.5.8.2 to clarify that a single-site organization receives a /48 IPv6 allocation. To align with current registry procedures, it also updates the terminology throughout the section from “assignment” to “allocation.” These clarifications match ARIN’s actual current practices, introduce no operational changes, and have received strong community support both on the PPML and at recent ARIN meetings. We have found this policy to be fair, impartial, and technically sound. Additionally, we have had no concerns expressed by the community for this policy.

Problem Statement

6.5.8.2 states “An organization qualifies for an assignment on the next larger nibble boundary when their sites exceed 75% of the /48s available in a prefix.“and then follows with “For example: More than 1 but less than or equal to 12 sites justified, receives a /44 assignment;“implying that a single site should only receive a /48. However, 1 /48 exceeds 75% of the /48s available in a /48 (1), so per the rule an organization with a single site should receive a /44, which differs from the example.

Policy Statement

Current Text:

6.5.8.2. Initial Assignment Size

Organizations that meet at least one of the initial assignment criteria above are eligible to receive an initial assignment of /48. Requests for larger initial assignments, reasonably justified with supporting documentation, will be evaluated based on the number of sites in an organization’s network and the number of subnets needed to support any extra-large sites defined below.

The initial assignment size will be determined by the number of sites justified below. An organization qualifies for an assignment on the next larger nibble boundary when their sites exceed 75% of the /48s available in a prefix. For example:

• More than 1 but less than or equal to 12 sites justified, receives a /44 assignment;
• More than 12 but less than or equal to 192 sites justified, receives a /40 assignment;
• More than 192 but less than or equal to 3,072 sites justified, receives a /36 assignment;
• More than 3,072 but less than or equal to 49,152 sites justified, receives a /32 assignment; etc…

Proposed Text:

6.5.8.2. Initial Allocation Size

Organizations that meet at least one of the initial allocation criteria above are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /48. Larger initial allocation sizes will be determined by the number of sites justified below; an organization will qualify for an allocation on the next larger nibble boundary when their sites exceed 75% of the /48s available in a prefix. For example:

• 2 to 12 sites justified will receive a /44 allocation;
• 13 to 192 sites justified will receive a /40 allocation;
• 193 to 3,072 sites justified will receive a /36 allocation;
• 3,073 to 49,152 sites justified will receive a /32 allocation, etc.

Timetable for Implementation

Immediate

Comments

Based on community feedback, the policy structure was reworked to state that a single-site organization receives a /48, and then the 75% formula applies to multi-site organizations, rather than framing the /48 as an exception. In addition, we received comments stating the “assignment” term is no longer used and it should be updated to “allocation” to align with current procedures as they no longer reference assignments. This has been updated in the entire section.

Staff and Legal Review (15 June 2026)

Staff Understanding

Section 6.5.8.2 of the NRPM describes the requirements for an initial allocation of IPv6 addresses to end user organizations based on the number of sites in the organization’s network. Staff understands this Draft Policy intends to clarify how these requirements apply to organizations with only one site.

Staff also understands this draft policy updates instances of “assignment” to “allocation” since Assignments are no longer issued by ARIN.

This policy would not result to any change in existing allocation practices and only adds clarity.

Implementable as Written?

Yes

Impact on ARIN Registry Operations and Services

None

Legal Review

No material legal issue

Implementation Timeframe Estimate

3 months

Implementation Requirements

• Staff Training
• Updates to public documentation

Proposal/Draft Policy Text Assessed

20 May 2026

History and Earlier Versions

Related Meetings