[ppml] Avoiding Square 0 (IPv4 NAT at endusers) (Was: Difference between ULA-C and PI)

Randy Bush wrote:
>> 2) PI puts a route into the DFZ, the other thing doesn't.
> 
> close, but not exactly.  PI allows holder to announce to dfz or not, as
> they choose.
> 
> and, as smb says, you may think you don't want to connect it to the
> internet now.  but some day you will.

I fully agree with this statement.

As such the ONLY "value" that ULA brings is for the dentists-office
scenario, where one simply plugs in a couple of boxes on a network,
where one of those boxes acts as a router which generates a ULA (not C)
and then uses that on the local network.

This though will cause only one thing in the end: ISP's will be giving
out /128's to endusers and the enduser will use ULAs which are
autogenerated anyway, box will NAT and we are back to square 0.



As such, as this is the ARIN Policy mailinglist afterall, might I
propose the following the following:

 ARIN (and other RIRs) set up a web-based form where end-users(*1)
 of PA address space, which they receive from their ISP can complain,
 if their ISP is not willing to provide them with a /48(*2) but is
 giving them a /128.

This way end-users can report to ARIN that an ISP, even though they are
getting the /32 or larger from ARIN with the intention of providing
/48's to end-sites is actually not doing so. Then ARIN can nicely
contact the ISP and raise this to them that they are not fulfilling
their duty, the ones they justified the address space for in the first
place.

Any ISP who is not willing to provide a /48 to an enduser should not be
able to get a /32 or similar allocation in the first place.

In the above, 'paying extra for a /48' (and thus cashing in on address
space) should not be allowed either. If an ISP want to limit traffic
usage*3 then they should set up proper limits and say "you are allowed
to transfer X up / Y down of data", this is already common place.


*1 = home users: your mom&pops&grannie&you&me, companies etc.
*2 = /48's might soon change to /56's, at least there is a proposal in
the RIPE region for this, which IMHO is quite acceptable.
*3 = Address bits are 'free', ISP's pay their transits for traffic, they
don't pay their transit for the amount of address space they are using
either, so why should the enduser?



Greets,
 Jeroen

   Donned in a stylish flexible but thick and fire/water/air/bulletproof
   kevlar asbestos suite as the above will nicely impact a lot of
   people's business models who will not like the above ;)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 311 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/attachments/20070608/c32c969f/attachment.bin