<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 18, 2020, at 01:41 , Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" class="">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/04/2020 05:26, Owen DeLong wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:8B8E5BB8-E17A-4AD3-831C-24A000D18B7B@delong.com" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
...
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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.</div>
</blockquote>
Thankfully it is not !<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>How so? What’s the advantage to not doing so?</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:8B8E5BB8-E17A-4AD3-831C-24A000D18B7B@delong.com" class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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.</div>
</blockquote>
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.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Really?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>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.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:8B8E5BB8-E17A-4AD3-831C-24A000D18B7B@delong.com" class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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.</div>
</blockquote><p class="">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.</p></div></div></blockquote>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.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>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.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>You simply cannot do that with a /60. It’s marginal with a /56 and you run into a number of walls.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:8B8E5BB8-E17A-4AD3-831C-24A000D18B7B@delong.com" class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">So… we have a circumstance of competing tradeoffs in policy:</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>We
don’t want policy to create perverse incentives to not give /48s
to customers. That’s one of the reasons</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>for
the particular wording of the PAU text in the IPv6 ISP policy
(which staff doesn’t do a particularly good</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>job
of following in my observation).</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>We
don’t want to create economic disincentives to IPv6 deployment.</div>
</blockquote><p class="">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.</p></div></div></blockquote>Well… I think policy and engineering wise, you’re in the minority (fortunately).</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Policy as written definitely favors /48s for everyone.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>