[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement - Last Call

Sat Apr 15 15:48:09 EDT 2006

Not under the current RFCs.

Owen

--On April 15, 2006 9:14:44 AM -0400 Scott Leibrand 
<sleibrand at internap.com> wrote:

> A meta-question:
>
> If you end up needing more than 256 subnets for your house, and have a /56
> or even a /64, can you make your subnets /65's, /66's, etc?
>
> -Scott
>
> On 04/14/06 at 11:22pm +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> <jordi.palet at consulintel...:
>
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> See below, in-line.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > De: Scott Leibrand <sleibrand at internap.com>
>> > Responder a: <sleibrand at internap.com>
>> > Fecha: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:35:25 -0400 (EDT)
>> > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
>> > CC: "ppml at arin.net" <ppml at arin.net>
>> > Asunto: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6
>> > assignment and utilisation requirement - Last Call
>> >
>> > On 04/14/06 at 10:23pm +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
>> > <jordi.palet at consulintel...:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> While I don't agree with this proposal (I still believe a default /48
>> >> should be assigned to any end-site if is non-portable space),
>> >
>> > Why?  Do you think that a site with 65,000 subnets can claim to just
>> > be a non-business residential customer?
>>
>> Yes I know from current research of services and products that will be in
>> the market in the next few years, that residential customers will need
>> more than 256 subnets.
>>
>> I'm not so convinced about 65.000 subnets, but I'm given the choice in
>> between 256 subnets or 65.000 subnets, I much prefer to be sure than
>> became short.
>>
>> And I'm still talking about homes (smart homes if you want to say), so
>> residential customers, not business customers. However, there is more and
>> more people working from their home, may be you want to consider them a
>> special case also ;-)
>>
>> >
>> >> I would accept it, if the final text of the policy make sure that an
>> >> end-site has the right to request to the LIR for being upgraded from
>> >> the /64 or /56 to the /48 without the need for a detailed
>> >> justification (as otherwise may go against the end-site right to
>> >> privacy) and the end-site can get that upgrade at no extra recurrent
>> >> costs (a setup fee is acceptable if it match real costs for that and
>> >> a small recurrent cost which match the *real* cost for that space as
>> >> paid to the RIR will be also acceptable).
>> >
>> > This sounds to me like something *way* outside of ARIN's authority.
>>
>> I'm not sure in the case of ARIN, but in other registries, the charging
>> by LIRs to end-customers is expected to be to cover their administrative
>> costs, not to make money out of the addresses and ASNs, which are a
>> human property.
>>
>> On the other way around, the LIRs need to understand that charging for
>> the addresses at the end is against their business. I've already talked
>> about this in other occasions. In Spain you pay typically 12 Euros for
>> each IPv4 address per month (while the cost of the ADSL line is now 20
>> Euros, including free national phone calls). Obviously the ISPs aren't
>> making any *real* business, because almost none of the 4.5 million
>> broadband users in the country pay for that. However, this makes almost
>> impossible to the ISPs to deploy easily new services and applications
>> which can be charged for and thus make much more profit than with the 12
>> Euros per address (not to say the extra cost of running NAT and
>> providing support for the problems caused by NAT).
>>
>> Unfortunately, most of the ISPs, still don't see that and I doubt that in
>> the short term they will see it. As said, I want to make sure that users
>> don't end up paying for that and ISPs realize that the business is in the
>> added value services and applications. Is the only way IPv6 will succeed.
>>
>> But even if you don't agree with me about the cost issue, may be you
>> agree that the end-user don't need to justify why he needs more subnets
>> and has the right to keep his privacy. This is clearly part of ARIN
>> authority.
>>
>> Same with avoiding the renumbering, otherwise, we are unfair defining
>> policy that avoid renumbering to LIRs, right ?
>>
>> >
>> >> Is also important that the user upgrading from a /64 or /56 to a /48
>> >> don't need to renumber, so I will suggest that the ISP need to keep
>> >> reserved the complete /48.
>> >>
>> >> For those that believe that reserving the /48 is a space waste, I will
>> >> suggest to understand that this can be changed in the future
>> >> (possible in hundreds of years, in my opinion) if we really come into
>> >> a situation where we have to use the reserved space, even if that
>> >> means renumbering some or all the end-sites (I'm considering that
>> >> most of the end-sites that will fall into this situation will be
>> >> residential customers). Renumbering once in hundreds of years should
>> >> not be considered as a trouble, as most probably, residential users
>> >> don't keep the same provider for so long time ...
>> >>
>> >> What I'm trying to avoid here is the situation that we have today
>> >> which users being forced to NAT and a single dynamic IPv4 address,
>> >> which can turn in a few years from now in something similar if you
>> >> only get a /64 and need /56 or /48.
>> >
>> > Do you think that a home network will need more than a million host
>> > addresses within "a few years from now"?  I don't.
>>
>> Is not a question of how many addresses. It may be the case that we only
>> use a few addresses of each subnet. That's fine, is part of the design
>> of IPv6 that we accepted, which has lots of advantages, like the
>> capability to run auto-configuration, privacy, CGAs, and for sure more
>> to come.
>>
>> >
>> > I do agree that home users may want to run more than one subnet, and
>> > may want more than one /64.  Therefore I agree with the guideline that
>> > /64's should only be given out when it is known a priori that one and
>> > only one
>>
>> Which I will interpret as almost never a /64 should be given out (may be
>> only for a cellular phone and only if it is not connecting other devices
>> with other interfaces, otherwise is a mobile router).
>>
>> > subnet is needed, and that a /56 should be given out otherwise.
>> > However, I think that anyone who actually needs a /48 really should be
>> > considered a business customer, not a residential customer.
>>
>> As said, this is no longer the case if we look to the situation that can
>> be expected in a very few years.
>>
>> >
>> > -Scott
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************
>> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
>>
>> Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
>> Slides available at:
>> http://www.ipv6-es.com
>>
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
>> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be
>> aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
>> of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML mailing list
>> PPML at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

-- 
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20060415/c122e210/attachment.sig>