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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Apr 18, 2020, at 01:41 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 !

How so? What’s the advantage to not doing so?

>> 
>> 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.

Really?

What is the benefit to NOT giving residential customers /48s? Please explain it to me because so far, I haven’t heard an explanation for this limitation that makes any sense.

>> 
>> 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.
> 
That’s not the justification. That’s the rebuttal to the IPv4-Think mentality of let’s pretend there’s scarcity and put unnecessary limitations in place as a result.

The reason we want /48s everywhere is so that future applications involving automatic topologies with multiple layers of DHCP-PD can be brought to fruition. So that in-home network segmentation without user intervention can eventually become a reality. So that we can actually develop plug-and-play secure networking with proper segmentation working in an automated fashion.

You simply cannot do that with a  /60. It’s marginal with a /56 and you run into a number of walls.


>> 
>> 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.
> 
Well… I think policy and engineering wise, you’re in the minority (fortunately).

Policy as written definitely favors /48s for everyone.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20200418/9e374b0d/attachment.htm>