[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement - Last Call

[Scott Leibrand]

On 04/14/06 at 10:23pm +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel...:

> Hi,
>
> While I don't agree with this proposal (I still believe a default /48 should
> be assigned to any end-site if is non-portable space),

Why?  Do you think that a site with 65,000 subnets can claim to just be a
non-business residential customer?

> I would accept it, if the final text of the policy make sure that an
> end-site has the right to request to the LIR for being upgraded from the
> /64 or /56 to the /48 without the need for a detailed justification (as
> otherwise may go against the end-site right to privacy) and the end-site
> can get that upgrade at no extra recurrent costs (a setup fee is
> acceptable if it match real costs for that and a small recurrent cost
> which match the *real* cost for that space as paid to the RIR will be
> also acceptable).

This sounds to me like something *way* outside of ARIN's authority.

> Is also important that the user upgrading from a /64 or /56 to a /48
> don't need to renumber, so I will suggest that the ISP need to keep
> reserved the complete /48.
>
> For those that believe that reserving the /48 is a space waste, I will
> suggest to understand that this can be changed in the future (possible in
> hundreds of years, in my opinion) if we really come into a situation where
> we have to use the reserved space, even if that means renumbering some or
> all the end-sites (I'm considering that most of the end-sites that will fall
> into this situation will be residential customers). Renumbering once in
> hundreds of years should not be considered as a trouble, as most probably,
> residential users don't keep the same provider for so long time ...
>
> What I'm trying to avoid here is the situation that we have today which
> users being forced to NAT and a single dynamic IPv4 address, which can turn
> in a few years from now in something similar if you only get a /64 and need
> /56 or /48.

Do you think that a home network will need more than a million host
addresses within "a few years from now"?  I don't.

I do agree that home users may want to run more than one subnet, and may
want more than one /64.  Therefore I agree with the guideline that /64's
should only be given out when it is known a priori that one and only one
subnet is needed, and that a /56 should be given out otherwise.  However,
I think that anyone who actually needs a /48 really should be considered a
business customer, not a residential customer.

-Scott