On Jun 5, 2013, at 15:55 , Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote: > On Jun 5, 2013, at 6:27 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> Also note that if you give residential customers /56s, you will need to be >> able to justify /48s for businesses in terms of the number of /56s they need >> at each end site in order to qualify for an additional allocation. At least >> this is how ARIN policy is currently structured. > > I would feel pretty comfortable saying that I want a /48 to assign to each > customer, and then using some of the bits from each /48 for semantic > prefixes, because I'm using them to support the customer. I don't see > anything in the policy you've quoted that forbids this. I do not think that > I would have to make any inaccurate representations to the RIR. Why are we > still talking about this, Owen?
You could probably get away with that. However, I would expect the first customer that runs afoul of your semantics because they want more pieces of their /48 under a different semantic control than you allow will likely file a fraud report with ARIN, as you are not truly delegating the /48 to the control of said end-site, but, instead exercising your own control over the delegation of smaller chunks of it. We are still talking about it because you continue to try and defraud the intent of the existing policy and claim that it is permitted. Owen
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
