[ppml] Avoiding Square 0 (IPv4 NAT at endusers) (Was: Difference between ULA-C and PI)

[John Paul Morrison]

Seconded.

IPv4 address space is already abused by service providers to "up-sell" 
services, there's no reason to think it won't continue with IPv6.
IP addresses are not supposed to be property and addresses are supposed 
to be allocated on need. Except if you're an end user, then you have to 
step up and
pay for them. e.g Basic Service A comes with 4 ip addresses, Enhanced 
Service B comes with 8 but costs $100 more - which makes the consumer 
think IP addresses are "assets" or a tangible commodity that the ISP has 
the right (or even obligation) to charge for, instead of just some 
arbitrary bits that cost almost nothing to administer.

But NAT is not going to disappear unless there's a simple, standard way 
to receive or register your own IPv6 prefix.

Maybe you already do - aren't we overlooking 2002::/16?  Everyone with 
an IPv4 address gets their own /48 already. The RFCs say these can
be used for native IPv6, although the primary use is in 6to4 tunnels.


Jeroen Massar wrote:
> As such, as this is the ARIN Policy mailinglist afterall, might I
> propose the following the following:
>
>  ARIN (and other RIRs) set up a web-based form where end-users(*1)
>  of PA address space, which they receive from their ISP can complain,
>  if their ISP is not willing to provide them with a /48(*2) but is
>  giving them a /128.
>
> This way end-users can report to ARIN that an ISP, even though they are
> getting the /32 or larger from ARIN with the intention of providing
> /48's to end-sites is actually not doing so. Then ARIN can nicely
> contact the ISP and raise this to them that they are not fulfilling
> their duty, the ones they justified the address space for in the first
> place.
>
> Any ISP who is not willing to provide a /48 to an enduser should not be
> able to get a /32 or similar allocation in the first place.
>
> In the above, 'paying extra for a /48' (and thus cashing in on address
> space) should not be allowed either. If an ISP want to limit traffic
> usage*3 then they should set up proper limits and say "you are allowed
> to transfer X up / Y down of data", this is already common place.
>
>
> *1 = home users: your mom&pops&grannie&you&me, companies etc.
> *2 = /48's might soon change to /56's, at least there is a proposal in
> the RIPE region for this, which IMHO is quite acceptable.
> *3 = Address bits are 'free', ISP's pay their transits for traffic, they
> don't pay their transit for the amount of address space they are using
> either, so why should the enduser?
>
>
>