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

[Fernando Frediani]

On 19/04/2020 01:38, David Farmer wrote:
> I support this policy as written, as I said previously, I recommend a 
> couple of changes, but I won't repeat the details of those changes here.
>
> Regarding the current discussion of /48 assignments to 
> residential customers, that is the architecture as defined by 
> the IETF, and ARIN policy MUST NOT create situations where its 
> necessary or that incentivizes ISPs to make assignments longer 
> than /48. Further, this policy is at least minimally consistent with 
> the IPv6 architecture, and /48 IPv6 assignments, when considering a 
> 3X-Small ISP, with a /24 of IPv4 and a /40 of IPv6, both address 
> families will reasonably support 250 or fewer customers.

Can you please quote exactly where IETF defines that way ?

RFC6177 in its abstract says: "/RFC 3177 argued that in IPv6, end sites 
should be assigned /48 blocks in most cases.  The Regional Internet 
Registries (RIRs) adopted that recommendation in 2002, but began 
reconsidering the policy in 2005. This document obsoletes the RFC 3177 
recommendations on the assignment of IPv6 address space to end sites. 
The exact choice of how much address space to assign end sites is an 
issue for the operational community.  The IETF's role in this case is 
limited to providing guidance on IPv6 architectural and operational 
considerations./"

...
"/This document reviews the architectural and operational considerations 
of end site assignments as well as the motivations behind the original 
recommendations in RFC 3177. Moreover, this document clarifies that a 
one-size-fits-all recommendation of /48 is not nuanced enough for the 
broad range of end sites and is no longer recommended as a single default./"

>
> The number of customers and the size of IPv6 customer assignments 
> actually deployed in reality are outside the scope and control of 
> ARIN, the other RIRs, and even the IETF. It is solely in the scope and 
> control of the ISP deploying a network. Furthermore, RFC 6177 
> recognizes longer end-site assignments between /48 and /64 could be 
> reasonable.

Recognizes as an exception and it clearly states that is not the 
recommendation anymore, talks about all the issues and why it was 
reviewed and mentions that if someone justify can get it, so as an 
exception.

Given all above I cannot agree and have the same view that /48 to 
residential customers indistinctly is a normal thing and that RIRs 
should necessarily adapt to allow ISPs to make these assignments the way 
is being suggested in this discussion.

Regards


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20200419/fe08dc20/attachment.htm>