Policy should not prohibit doing what many regard as best practice. Just
because SOME ISPs might find a /48 unnecessarily large doesn't mean that ALL
will, or that the recommendation of a /48 is always WRONG and that nano-ISPs
should be punished (financially) for doing so.
There is obviously a huge scaling issue with fees, when a giant ISP is paying
less than a penny per year for addresses and a very small ISP is paying close to
a dollar per year, but I don't think we can fix that with policy. But we can
make it less worse by allowing the tiniest ISPs to allocate what they need and
not orders of magnitude more than they need at exponentially larger cost.
Is there any way to ensure that an ISP requesting a /40 has fewer than 250
customers, so they can assign each a /48 in order to be eligible for the
smallest allocation at commensurate cost with a /24 of IPv4?
On 4/19/2020 11:33 AM, Fernando Frediani wrote:
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 (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
