On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 12:21 AM Fernando Frediani <fhfredi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/04/2020 01:38, David Farmer wrote: > > I support this policy as written, as I said previously, I recommend a > couple of changes, but I won't repeat the details of those changes here. > > Regarding the current discussion of /48 assignments to > residential customers, that is the architecture as defined by the IETF, and > ARIN policy MUST NOT create situations where its necessary or that > incentivizes ISPs to make assignments longer than /48. Further, this policy > is at least minimally consistent with the IPv6 architecture, and /48 IPv6 > assignments, when considering a 3X-Small ISP, with a /24 of IPv4 and a /40 > of IPv6, both address families will reasonably support 250 or fewer > customers. > > Can you please quote exactly where IETF defines that way ? > > RFC6177 in its abstract says: "*RFC 3177 argued that in IPv6, end sites > should be assigned /48 blocks in most cases. The Regional Internet > Registries (RIRs) adopted that recommendation in 2002, but began > reconsidering the policy in 2005. This document obsoletes the RFC 3177 > recommendations on the assignment of IPv6 address space to end sites. The > exact choice of how much address space to assign end sites is an issue for > the operational community. The IETF's role in this case is limited to > providing guidance on IPv6 architectural and operational considerations.*" > ... > "*This document reviews the architectural and operational considerations > of end site assignments as well as the motivations behind the original > recommendations in RFC 3177. Moreover, this document clarifies that a > one-size-fits-all recommendation of /48 is not nuanced enough for the broad > range of end sites and is no longer recommended as a single default.*" > > > The number of customers and the size of IPv6 customer assignments actually > deployed in reality are outside the scope and control of ARIN, the other > RIRs, and even the IETF. It is solely in the scope and control of the ISP > deploying a network. Furthermore, RFC 6177 recognizes longer end-site > assignments between /48 and /64 could be reasonable. > > Recognizes as an exception and it clearly states that is not the > recommendation anymore, talks about all the issues and why it was reviewed > and mentions that if someone justify can get it, so as an exception. > No, it doesn't eliminate /48 as a recommendation, it clarifies that /48 is not a requirement of the IPv6 architecture, it eliminates /48 as the default, eliminating the idea of /48 as a one-size-fits-all. However, /48 effectively remains as the maximum recommended end-site assignment, with /64 as the minimum, reaffirming that "in practice, that means at least one /64, and in most cases significantly more." So, even after RFC 6177, /48 still plays an important part in the IPv6 architecture, it just more nuanced than it was in RFC 3177. So, if you want to assign /56s or /60s, or /48s for that matter, you are in compliance with RFC 6177 and ARIN policy, at least in my opinion. > Given all above I cannot agree and have the same view that /48 to > residential customers indistinctly is a normal thing and that RIRs should > necessarily adapt to allow ISPs to make these assignments the way is being > suggested in this discussion. > > Regards > Even with RFC 6177, /48 is still relevant in the context of, and instructive to, ARIN policy, in helping to determine the size of allocations ARIN makes. In that, if ARIN policy assumed only /56 assignments, let's say, then it would be impossible for ISPs to make /48 assignments, as they wouldn't have enough space to do so. Therefore, ARIN policy needs to assume /48 for assignments, allowing ISPs to make the assignments sizes they wish to, between /48 and /64. Nothing in ARIN policy requires /48 assignments by ISPs, it simply allows up to /48 without additional justification. There are reasons to assign /48s even to residential customers, Owen articulates them well, but nothing in ARIN policy requires this, however, ARIN policy needs to allow for /48 assignments as an option. In the case of this policy, relating to /40 allocations for 3X-Small ISPs, if you were to make /48 assignments you can still make a sufficiently large number of them for the expected customer base of 3X-Small ISPs, and you can make even more if you make /56 or /60 assignments. However, if instead of a /40 allocation, we made it a /44 allocation, then you could only make 16 /48 assignments, and this is not a reasonable number of customer assignments even for a 3X-Small ISP. Thanks. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
_______________________________________________ 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.