[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "David Kessens" <david.kessens at nokia.com>
> On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 09:48:37AM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > I would classify dorms as "student hotels" and assign a /64 per
> > floor (or per building even) unless a student specifically asked for
> > their own /64 or /48.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's permitted
> > under existing policy if the student is paying the university -- or if
> > a guest is paying a hotel -- for Internet access.
> > ...
>
> I think you read too much in the policy. The policy is very liberal
> and intented to be that way. You can assign a /48 if there is a chance
> that the end-user/your customer will need more than one /64. In fact,
> it is recommended to assign a /48 in that case. However, it is not
> required in any way.
>
> Nothing will stop you from being more conservative than the
> recommendations in your assignments as an LIR.

6.5.4.1 says "Assignments are to be made in accordance with the existing
guidelines (RFC3177,RIRs-on-48)" and then quotes RFC 3177's own summary.
Digging a into RFC 3177 itself, we find in section 3 "In particular, we
recommend ... Home network subscribers, connecting through on-demand or
always-on connections should receive a /48."

Don't be distracted by RFC 3177 using the terms "should" and "recommend";
ARIN policy imports those suggestions and turns them into rules by omitting
similarly liberal wording, even if that wasn't the intent -- and I think it
was.  I don't see any leeway for an LIR to assign less than a /48 to "home
network subscribers", which dorm residents certainly are.

> Whether that is smart to do is a completely different issue. What
> the policy describes is the maximum amount of address space
> that you can assign to an end-user/customer without getting in
> trouble with the RIR. You really cannot get into trouble with the
> RIR by being more conservative than the policy.

I think the intent was to establish not only a maximum assignment, but also
a minimum assignment.

> Obviously, your customer might not agree with you being more
> conservative than what is allowed and choose a different provider
> if the end-user/customer has a need for more address space.
>
> As for my personal opinion, yes I do think that the policy is
> perhaps a bit too generous, especially in the case for more
> commodity style Internet services like DSL/cable/dorm rooms/
> WLAN deployments.  Therefore, I think it would make sense to
> add a category for this kind users which would broadly fit into
> what most people describe as "SOHO" users.

We'd have to drop the reference to RFC 3177 in that case, since it
explicitly calls out SOHO users as deserving a /48 even if they don't ask
for (or need) one.

S

Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov