<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">On Jan 4, 2023, at 5:18 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:<div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 5:10 PM David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">On Jan 4, 2023, at 2:32 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">However, since /48 is also the minimum Internet routable size,</blockquote>Sorry, what? Out of 172,457 IPv6 prefixes seen at AMSIX (according to routeviews) on 2023-01-01, counts of prefixes longer than 48:</blockquote>Sorry, I didn't realize I'd be called out for insufficient pedantry.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>You’re aware you’re on the Internet, right?</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>The minimum IPv6 size _ubiquitously accepted_ into folks' Internet BGP<br>tables is /48. As with IPv4's /24 boundary, some folks accept longer<br>prefixes. As with IPv4, -some- is not enough.<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><div>“Ubiquitous". Like /24 in IPv4 was ubiquitous until Sprint (the 800 lbs gorilla at the time) started filtering at /19? The point being that arbitrary boundaries are overly simplistic: there aren’t hard rules here, only local policy. But you know this.</div><div><br></div><div>Anyhow, back to the original question:</div><div><br><div><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 11:52 AM Fernando Frediani <</span><a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">> wrote:</span><br style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></div><blockquote type="cite"><p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I always found a bit strange (not only in ARIN) to have this distinction between ISP and End-user. In practice things should not differ much. Only thing that would possible remain slightly different are the details of justifications that must be provided and the size of the block to be allocated.</p></blockquote>In practice, ISPs tend to grow much more and more quickly than end user networks.<br><blockquote type="cite"><p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Another thing that I wanted to understand better is the reasoning to allocate a significant smaller IPv6 block to a said end-user organization given it is not so scarce resource. At least a /40 should be minimal default for an end-user (not a /48) and a /32 for any size of ISP. </p></blockquote>You might want to look at RFC 6177.<br><blockquote type="cite"><p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">For now my personal impression is to create some artificial scarcity in order to have different levels of Service Category.</p></blockquote></div><div>Never attribute to malice what can be more easily explained by inertia.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>-drc</div><div><br></div></body></html>