<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/04/2020 01:38, David Farmer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN-Dau04Pw8F2QcmiwBFhe-qF6LOBk0pSbCgteXx+k9hTq0tQA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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"
cite="mid:CAN-Dau04Pw8F2QcmiwBFhe-qF6LOBk0pSbCgteXx+k9hTq0tQA@mail.gmail.com">
<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.<br>
</p>
<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<br>
</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>