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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Sat Apr 18 05:32:26 EDT 2020

> 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.


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.


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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list