[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines
sleibrand at internap.com
Wed Aug 22 19:31:10 EDT 2007
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.
> 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
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML