<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/04/2020 05:07, Owen DeLong wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2E7A4FD7-8E4D-42E2-9B20-0C56C73D2AF7@delong.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br>
<div>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.</div>
</blockquote>
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 !<br>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p><clip></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2E7A4FD7-8E4D-42E2-9B20-0C56C73D2AF7@delong.com">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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</div>
<div class="">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</div>
<div class="">reason.</div>
</blockquote>
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.<br>
Let me quote an important part of it within section 2: "<i>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.</i>"<br>
<p>Furthermore at the time of the write of the document it also
mentions: "Since then, APNIC [APNIC-ENDSITE], ARIN [ARIN-ENDSITE],
and RIPE [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.</p>
<p>Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>