[ppml] Proposed Policy: PI assignments for V6

[marcelo bagnulo braun]

El 08/12/2004, a las 15:43, David Kessens escribió:

>
> Marcelo,
>
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 03:17:35PM +0100, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>>
>> well, reading RFC 3177 recommends to assign:
>>
>>       -  /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device
>>          is connecting.
>>
>> i guess that most current mobile phones would fit in this category 
>> (yes
>> i am familiar with manets and so on but i guess that most cell phones
>> only connect one device)
>
> You are describing why mobiles don't fit in the /128 category:
> it is certainly not absolutely known that only one device is
> connecting.
>

so, i guess that the right thing to do would be to assign a /48 to each 
mobile phone, right?

since RFC 3177 states that:
       -  /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers.
       -  /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by
          design.
       -  /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device
          is connecting.

and since  we cannot be sure that a mobile phone will have a single 
subnetwork behind, i guess that the /48 would be the proper choice

I am sorry but i think this is a huge waste.
For the time being, most of mobile phones will not have a manet behind, 
not one not many subnetworks. I think there must be something very 
wrong if we assign a /48 to each mobile phone


regards, marcelo

>>> I agree that the 200 limit is not optimal. However, I have not heard
>>> of a single mobile provider who could not get the ipv6 addresses that
>>> they needed.
>>
>> Agree, but i guess that the point is that policy should be crisp and
>> clear and should express the reality
>> But this is a different discussion, imho, and i guess this is a more
>> local discussion.
>> My concern with this PI initiative is that i see more of a global 
>> issue
>
> I agree that there is issues with the current policy for various
> categories of address space users but I don't see the problem for
> mobile providers. They clearly qualify and the registries agree
> considering the allocations that have been done so far.
>
> David Kessens
> ---
>