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

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at gmail.com
Sun Apr 19 11:33:49 EDT 2020

On 19/04/2020 05:07, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Right… IETF designed a good architecture and then came under pressure 
> from a bunch of people with an IPv4 mindset and given the modern state 
> of the IETF decided to just punt on the whole thing rather than waste 
> more time on an argument where people were determined to do what they 
> were going to do anyway. RFC 6177 is more of a cop-out than a 
> legitimate standards document.
We cannot just choose the RFCs we will follow from those we like and 
disregard those which we don't. Imagine if vendors start to do the same !

Since it correctly (in my view) does putting that /48 for residential 
customers should be treated as an exception therefore no RIRs should 
have to adapt their policies to it. If ISPs assign /48 to these 
customers in exceptional basis (not as default) then they would have 
less or none of of the problems discussed here.


> There’s absolutely noting in RFC6177 that says /48s should not be 
> given out to residential customers. It punts it to the operational 
> community and says it really shouldn’t
> be up to the IETF. That’s generally true, but that does come with a 
> responsibility that the operational community doesn’t arbitrarily 
> create negative impacts without good
> reason.
One of the main points of the document, if not the most, is that /48 is 
no longer the default and not recommended as well. Therefore if it still 
possible to assign to a residential customer it should then be 
considered an exception not a normal thing as the others.
Let me quote an important part of it within section 2: "/Hence, it is 
strongly intended that even home sites be given multiple subnets worth 
of space, by default.  Hence, this document still recommends giving home 
sites significantly more than a single /64, but does not recommend that 
every home site be given a /48 either./"

Furthermore at the time of the write of the document it also mentions: 
[RIPE-ENDSITE] have revised the end site assignment policy to encourage 
the assignment of smaller (i.e., /56) blocks to end sites.". Although 
some of these might have been retired in their manuals it is possible to 
notice the spirit of  the change RFC6177 brings, and is still valid.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20200419/debeb876/attachment.htm>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list