On 19/04/2020 05:07, Owen DeLong wrote:
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.
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 !
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.
<clip>
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
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
reason.
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.
Let me quote an important part of it within section 2: "/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./"
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.
Regards
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.
