ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed

Antonio Querubin wrote:
...
> The draft has the following recommendations:
> 
> 1.  Home network subscribers, connecting through on-demand or
>     always-on connections should received a /48.
> 2.  Small and large enterprises should received a /48.
> 3.  Very large subscribers could receive a /47 or slightly shorter
>     prefix, or multiple /48's.
> 4.  Networks with a clearly expressed disinterest in subnetting
>     should received a /64.
> 5.  Mobile networks, such as vehicles, cellular phones should
>     received a static /64 prefix to allow the connection of multiple
>     devices and, depending on the architecture, a /128 for a
>     MobileIP care-of address [MobIPv6].
> 6.  Subscribers with a single dial-up node preferring a transient
>     address should received a /128.
> 
> Just some random thoughts on several of the above recommendations:
> 
> With regard to #1 I'm curious as to what constitutes a 'home network
> subscriber' in this draft?  Our experience with what we generally consider
> home network subscribers to be is that none subnet at all.  That being the
> case, why assign a /48 when a /64 is quite adequate while still providing
> the home user with full capability?

Because what we expect to see, technologically, is rapid growth in in-home
(or in-vehicle) networks. So it is risky to assume that current practice
represents the future.
 
> With regard to #2 most small organizations do not bother to subnet - they
> generally use switches to divide up traffic.  Subnetting requires routers
> of which the majority aren't IPv6-aware anyway.  Another alternative for
> #2 would be to combine it with #3:  small enterprises be assigned one or
> more /64s while very large enterprises receive a /48.  It seems to me that
> we should use a SLA for it's intended purpose - that it be specific to a
> 'site'.  But if sites are being assigned /48 where does that leave the
> NLA

We're asserting that due to the growth, we expect even small organizations
will become sites in the sense of needing subnets.

> 
> It seems that #1 and #2 above could/should be qualified with having a
> requirement to subnet or be geographically dispersed.

Do you want to be in the business of making that judgement on your users?

   Brian