[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

[Fernando Frediani]

On 18/04/2020 05:26, Owen DeLong wrote:
> ...
>
> Admittedly, /48s for everyone still isn’t gaining as much traction as 
> we’d like due to a combination of IPv4-think at some ISPs and other 
> reasons I have trouble understanding.
Thankfully it is not !
>
> E.G. I once had a discussion with the IPv6 project manager for a major 
> $CABLECO about why they were sticking it to their residential 
> customers with a maximum /60 instead of a /48. His answer perplexed 
> me… He said that the problem was that if they gave out /48s to all 
> their customers the way their network is structured, they’d need a 
> /12. Now I realize that policy only allows ARIN to give out a /16 at a 
> time, but I’m quite certain this particular organization could easily 
> qualify for 16 /16s without any issue whatsoever. When I pointed this 
> out, he just walked away shaking his head.
And he is right. I still fail to understand from where this idea of 
giving residential customers a /48 came from. And this is not thinking 
with IPv4's mind really.
>
> Now I realize a /12 sounds like a ridiculous amount of space, but if 
> you think about it, this is an organization that has several /8s worth 
> of IPv4, so it’s not actually all that far fetched. Also, I seriously 
> doubt that there are anywhere near 100 organizations with the number 
> of customers this $CABLECO has. There are 512 /12s in 2000::/3 which 
> is just the first 1/8th of IPv6 address space designated as GUA 
> (Global Unicast Addresses). The math works. We have the address space 
> to do this and give everyone /48s without any issue of running out.

Well, I hear this every time I talk against this "/48 for all" idea. And 
I don't think because of this justification 'we have plenty so let's 
give them' should be broadly and always applied. Give people whatever is 
reasonable for their usage, but not a tremendous exaggeration. And a /48 
for a residential customer is an exaggeration that will hardly ever be 
used. If one day this changes we can adapt to the new scenario.

>
> So… we have a circumstance of competing tradeoffs in policy:
>
> 1.We don’t want policy to create perverse incentives to not give /48s 
> to customers. That’s one of the reasons
> for the particular wording of the PAU text in the IPv6 ISP policy 
> (which staff doesn’t do a particularly good
> job of following in my observation).
>
> 2.We don’t want to create economic disincentives to IPv6 deployment.

I can see the intents of this proposal specially for point 2 and perhaps 
there are adjustments to be done, but certainly not with the idea of 
giving /48 everywhere in mind.

Fernando

>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20200418/be545594/attachment.htm>