Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John C Klensin wrote: > > > > --On Tuesday, 28 August, 2007 15:06 -0700 David Kessens > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Thomas, > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 04:09:14PM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: > >>> We shouldn't be surprised that a "one size fits all" approach > >>> (where home users get the same amount of space by default as > >>> an IBM or Microsoft) doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to > >>> some people. > >> US 2001:49c0::/32 2001:49c0::/32 IBM-IPV6-01 > >> US 2001:4898::/32 2001:4898::/32 > >> MICROSOFT-IPV6-BLK > >> > >> If there really is a "one size fits all" policy, > >> where can I get my personal IPv6 /32 allocation ? > > > > Conversely, if /48 is sufficient for any plausible enterprise, > > is ARIN being appropriately conservative about addresses here?
> Are you saying that from where you sit those organizations don't meet > the requirements for an initial allocation as an LIR? This is the key point. And as David well knew when he posted his note, LIRs are not end sites and are treated _very_ differently. A /32 is the default minimum size an LIR gets. For those not familiar with the terminology, an LIR is what we usually think of as a ISP or provider, where the organization provides internet connectivity for a number of other organizations. As a data point, ARIN (in the last year) adopted a IPv6 PI for end sites doing multihoming policy. Such end sites get a /48. Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
