On 18/04/2020 05:26, Owen DeLong wrote:
...
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.
Thankfully it is not !
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.
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.
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.
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.
So… we have a circumstance of competing tradeoffs in policy:
1.We don’t want policy to create perverse incentives to not give /48s
to customers. That’s one of the reasons
for the particular wording of the PAU text in the IPv6 ISP policy
(which staff doesn’t do a particularly good
job of following in my observation).
2.We don’t want to create economic disincentives to IPv6 deployment.
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.
Fernando
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
