<div dir="ltr"><div>On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 12:21 AM Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>On 19/04/2020 01:38, David Farmer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">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.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Can you please quote exactly where IETF defines that way ? <br>
</p>
<p>RFC6177 in its abstract says: "<i>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.</i>"<br>
</p>
...<br>
"<i>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.</i>"<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p></div></blockquote><div>No, it doesn't eliminate /48 as a recommendation, it clarifies that /48 is not a requirement of the IPv6 architecture, it eliminates /48 as the default, eliminating the idea of /48 as a one-size-fits-all. However, /48 effectively remains as the maximum recommended end-site assignment, with /64 as the minimum, reaffirming that "in practice, that means at least one /64, and in most cases significantly more." So, even after RFC 6177, /48 still plays an important part in the IPv6 architecture, it just more nuanced than it was in RFC 3177.</div><div><br></div><div>So, if you want to assign /56s or /60s, or /48s for that matter, you are in compliance with RFC 6177 and ARIN policy, at least in my opinion.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><p>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.</p>
<p>Regards</p></div></blockquote><div>Even with RFC 6177, /48 is still relevant in the context of, and instructive to, ARIN policy, in helping to determine the size of allocations ARIN makes. In that, if ARIN policy assumed only /56 assignments, let's say, then it would be impossible for ISPs to make /48 assignments, as they wouldn't have enough space to do so. Therefore, ARIN policy needs to assume /48 for assignments, allowing ISPs to make the assignments sizes they wish to, between /48 and /64. Nothing in ARIN policy requires /48 assignments by ISPs, it simply allows up to /48 without additional justification.</div><div><br></div><div>There are reasons to assign /48s even to residential customers, Owen articulates them well, but nothing in ARIN policy requires this, however, ARIN policy needs to allow for /48 assignments as an option. In the case of this policy, relating to /40 allocations for 3X-Small ISPs, if you were to make /48 assignments you can still make a sufficiently large number of them for the expected customer base of 3X-Small ISPs, and you can make even more if you make /56 or /60 assignments. However, if instead of a /40 allocation, we made it a /44 allocation, then you could only make 16 /48 assignments, and this is not a reasonable number of customer assignments even for a 3X-Small ISP.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.</div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">===============================================<br>David Farmer <a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br>Networking & Telecommunication Services<br>Office of Information Technology<br>University of Minnesota <br>2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<br>Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<br>=============================================== </div></div>