[ppml] IPv6>>32

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Thu May 12 19:14:43 EDT 2005

In a message written on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 04:05:45PM -0400, Kevin Loch wrote:
> The dynamic assignment of a single ip can be traced back to
> RFC 2050:
>    7.  Due to constraints on the available free pool of IPv4 address
>        space, the use of static IP address assignments (e.g., one
>        address per customer) for dial-up users is strongly discouraged.

A bit of history for those who didn't live it.  Prior to broadband
it was a not uncommon practice to give a dial up user a fixed IP
address.  They would dial up and use that particular address, then
disconnect.  The address would only be available on the internet
while they were connected.  For instance, Virginia Tech was doing
this circa 1991-1994, and IIRC there were ~10,000 static addresses
assigned, but only 2-3,000 dial up ports.  This guaranteed ~7,000
addresses were not in use at any given time.  Policies like this
were worded to get people out of this model, and into dynamic
addressing for dial up as we all know and love it today.

> Now there is a difference between dialup pools and "always on"
> residential connections but customer expectations were set by the dialup
> experience.

By "expectation" I assume you mean the dynamic assignment of
addresses.  And to some degree I think that you are correct.  At
the same time, I think that's also an overgeneralization.  The
counter example is services like http://www.dyndns.org/ which go
to great pains to work around the dynamic addressing.  These customers
"expect" something similar to always on static IP'ed service, but
they either can't get it at all (which is actually my situation,
Adelphia here does not offer multiple IP's, or static IP's at all
for any price), or have decided their provider wants too much money
(eg, $40/month from verizon, when dyndns is $24/year + $30/year if
you want mail forwarding).

If the competitive market was delivering static IP's at a good price
services like dyndns wouldn't be necessary at all.

> They will have to swip or rwhois each /48, which they don't have to do
> right now with "address pools".  Perhaps we should change policy
> to encourage assignment of /48's by only requiring documentation of
> aggregate customers instead of each /48?

Based on the last meeting, and my own proposal, the ARIN membership
is quite clear that they want all assignments in the database.  I
completely forgot to add that to my list of reasons companies might
choose to give out /128's rather than /48's or /64's, reduction of

       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050512/de425969/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list