[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines

[Scott Leibrand]

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 17-aug-2007, at 20:21, Member Services wrote:
>
>   
>> LIR's may assign blocks in the range of /48 to /64 to end sites.
>> All assignments made by LIR's should meet a minimum HD-Ratio of .25.
>>     
>
>   
>> * /64 - Site needing only a single subnet.
>> * /60 - Site with 2-3 subnets initially.
>> * /56 - Site with 4-7 subnets initially.
>> * /52 - Site with 8-15 subnets initially.
>> * /48 - Site with 16+ subnets initially.
>>     
>
> I don't support this policy.
>
> Please note that at this time, there is rough consensus in the IETF  
> that there is no technical reason to limit end-user assignments to  
> anything smaller than a /48 block.
>
> <snip>
>
> I would REALLY like to be able for ANY user who  
> thinks he or she may possibly need it, to get a /48, no questions  
> asked.

I agree with you in opposing this policy proposal, that /48s should be 
available to users who want/need them, and that none of our policies 
should discourage LIRs from allocating /48s as needed.

> If it's still deemed desireable to make the standard  
> assignment for residential users smaller than that, I recommend a /60  
> because this is large enough to accommodate a fairly big home network  
> (I have 5 Cisco routers and 2 wifi base stations in my house and  
> never used more than 4 subnets) but small enough that people won't be  
> tempted to cram a corporate network in it, only to grow out of it  
> anyway and needing a rather painful renumbering operation (which  
> would be a significant risk with assigning /56s).

I've heard this argument (in favor of /60 instead of /56) before, and 
either would be fine with me, but I still don't understand why 
renumbering from a PA /56 into a PA /48 would be any harder than 
renumbering from a PA /48 to another provider's PA /48. 


Thanks,
Scott