[ppml] IPv6>>32

[David Kessens]

Stephen,

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:18:42PM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> 
> 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.

You are really looking for a problem that doesn't exist. ARIN is in
the business of good stewardship of IP address space. I would like to
hear from the first person who got in trouble with a RIR because you
assigned less address space then requested by a customer, even if you
didn't follow ARIN's recommendation to assign more.

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

No the intent was (among others) to change the mindset such that users
would have plenty of address space when they want to run an ipv6 based
network so that address considerations would not force them to deploy
technologies that limit the usefulness of their Internet connections.
The minimums/recommendations in the rfc help to support this intent
but they are not the intent itself.

> > 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.

Or write a new rfc that updates 3177.

David Kessens
---