[ppml] Proposed Policy: PI assignments for V6

da Silva, Ron rdasilva at va.rr.com
Thu Dec 9 14:12:03 EST 2004

> That isn't how I read the RFC.  As I read it, if I have a need for
> multiple
> subnets in my home, SOHO, business, etc., and I request it, my LIR
> issue me a /48, not a batch of /64s.
> I'm not saying this is good, nor am I saying it is bad, but, as I read
> RFC, that is what it says.

Owen - I agree. I was additionally (trying) to point out that mobile
endpoints (e.g. a cellphone) were not necessarily considered routers
(gateways, whatever) when the draft was developed.  Thus, I was
soliciting some help on how mobile operations map (or don't map) to the
/48 allocation assumptions (a la DSL/Cable) advanced in the RFC.

- Should every phone get a /48 because it might be a router?
- Should every phone get a /48 because it has an attached Bluetooth
subnet that additionally needs IPv6 addressing?
- How is this accomplished in the IMS/MMD/MIMO/whatever architectures?

Some of the motivations and details are out of scope for ppml, but any
policies derived from these discussions are definitely related.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list