On Jul 11, 2017, at 23:26 , [email protected] wrote:
First of all, ALL changes to v4 have been withdrawn from this proposal. This
proposal is ONLY about v6. Currently ALL v6 requires SWIP (/64 or more) and
this is unequal with v4 that has an 8 or more address standard for SWIP.
I think that drawing the SWIP boundary for IPv6 based upon residential/non
residential (NRPM 2.13) is wrong, as this is NOT done in IPv4 and would treat
v6 and v4 differently. Currently in v4, it is 8 or more addresses. Residential
or Non Residential does not change the SWIP requirement in IPv4 in any way.
You are entitled to your opinion, but IPv6 _IS_ fundamentally different from
IPv4.
The line is drawn where it is in IPv4 because for the most part, in IPv4,
it???s actually rare for a residential customer to have 8 or more addresses
assigned to their service and in such cases, it???s usually not a purely
residential service. Further, at the time that line was drawn for IPv4, the
definition of a residential customer and the residential customer privacy
policies did not exist in the NRPM.
Thus, whatever boundary is chosen for v6, I think it should be a fixed value,
just like in IPv4. I would like to hear the exact reasons why it has been
proposed that there should be a residential/non residential difference in SWIP
policy, and what this difference in policy is meant to address. If it is a
valid reason, this should carry over to IPv4.
There already is a residential/non-residential difference in that residential
customers are allowed to be SWIPd with limited information.
Further, as I stated above, the /29 boundary was chosen primarily because it
was a convenient proxy for residential vs. business utilization.
Some commenters have suggested that routeability should be a factor in
determining if SWIP is needed. In IPv4, it is not possible to route anything
smaller than a /24, but the current SWIP v4 standard is /29 or more, much
smaller than the routability standard. In IPv6, nothing smaller than a /48 is
routable, so I kinda think that IPv4 /29 is very close to equal to IPv6 more
than a /56, and also not independently routable.
Trying to draw such comparisons between IPv4 and IPv6 is utterly and completely
specious, generally speaking. For any parallel you can draw I can cite multiple
examples where it simply doesn???t fit.
The simple fact of the matter is that IPv4 is a densely allocated space with a
serious shortage of addresses.
IPv6 is an entirely different addressing architecture with entirely different
requirements and (hopefully) entirely different management styles.
The comments I have been watching have strongly supported setting the SWIP
level for IPv6 at more than a /56. This is only one nibble away from /60 in
the current proposal. I also note that it seems quite universal that most
commenters think that a /64 is wrong, and everyone, even dynamic residential
customers deserve to have at least a /60 so that they can route packets in v6.
IMHO, even dynamic residential customers deserve to have at least a /48 as is
the fundamental design intention of IPv6. I realize that there are those who
oppose this view, but I???m quite certain that if you research it, you will
find that there are no convincing arguments favoring longer prefixes for
residential. In fact, almost every argument offered favoring these longer
prefixes is based almost entirely on IPv4-think (shortage mentality and
conservation).
In 2000::/3 (1/8th of the total IPv6 space which the IETF has currently set
aside as GUA), there are 2^45 /48s. That???s 35,184,372,088,832 (35 trillion)
/48s. The total population of the world is 7 Billion. So in this first 1/8th of
the IPv6 space, we have enough /48s to issue 5,000 to every single person on
earth. (Yes, I realize there???s also addresses needed for servers,
infrastructure, etc., but I think we can take that out of the extra 4,999 /48s
per person and still have room to spare).
If it turns out I???m wrong and we somehow exhaust the first /3 within my
lifetime, I???ll join others in advocating more conservative policy for the
next /3. There are still at least 3 more empty /3s after that and 3 more nearly
empty /3s beyond those. (IETF is talking about issuing addresses from a third
/3 for some special purpose I forget in addition to the minimal allocations out
of the end of e000::/3 (multicast, ULA, etc.) and 0000::/3 (unknown, default,
loopback, IPv4 mapped, etc.)).
So, while at the time of drafting, the IPv4 policy used /29 as a proxy for the
distinction between business and residential and while there was concern about
transparency of utilization and not wanting to allow ISPs to hide artificially
large allocations by calling them residential, those issues really don???t
apply in the IPv6 world.
Since ARIN policy fully supports, and even encourages /48s being issued to
residential customers for IPv6, I see no reason that a SWIP boundary of larger
than /56 is any more desirable than a SWIP boundary of larger than /48 with the
proviso that businesses should be SWIPd regardless as I fail to see a public
good from privacy protections for address assignments to businesses.
Owen
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Owen DeLong wrote:
On May 30, 2017, at 06:41 , William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Roberts, Orin <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hello all,
I am avidly following this discussion and based on my daily observances (daily
swips /subnets ), I would say Andy is closest to being practical.
Leave the IPv4 /29 requirements alone, THIS LIMIT IS ALREADY BEING PUSHED AT
DAILY BY NON-RESIDENTIAL USERS and only the vague ARIN policy prevents total
chaos.
With regards to IPv6, I would recommend ANY USER/ENTITY/ORG that requests a /56
OR LARGER NETWORK assignment be swiped.
That would still leave /60 to /64 assignments as minimum assignment or for
dynamic usage for either residential or other usage.
Howdy,
I don't like putting the SWIP requirement at /56 or larger because I think that
would encourage ISPs to assign /60s instead of /56s. The IPv6 experts I've read
seem to have a pretty strong consensus that the minimum assignment to an end
user should be either /48 or /56. Setting ARIN policy that encourages
assignments smaller than -both- of these numbers would be a bad idea IMHO.
This is one of those rare occasions when I absolutely agree with Bill. If
we???re going to do this, I would support a requirement as follows:
1. For customers fitting the definition in NRPM 2.13, /47 or
shorter.
2. For customers not fitting the definition in NRPM 2.13 /63 or
shorter.
Again I remind everyone that a /64 assignment to an end user, even for dynamic
or residential use, is absolutely positively 100% wrong. Doing so prevents the
end user from configuring their local lans as IPv6 is designed. They need at
least a /60 for that. If you are assigning /64's to end users, you are doing it
wrong.
Yes??? The only place I can imagine assigning /64s to customers as a legitimate
practice is for single-LAN datacenter installations where the customer has no
router.
If the customer might have a router, a /48 is the best and safest default
choice and shorter should be possible with reasonable justification.
Owen
_______________________________________________
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
