Tony Li wrote: [..] > Most MSOs would VERY much like to > sell you a service with a fraction of an IPv4 address today, but they > really haven't > figured out how they could do so technically. For v6, they will always > sell a service > with a minimal amount of address, regardless of ARIN policies. If they > could figure out how to make that a /128, they would. When they do, they are violating the premises on which they received their allocation. As such any ISP which is not willing to provide a /48* to an end-user should get their IPv6 allocation revoked by the RIR. Unfortunately it is for any RIR not very easy to check up on these things. Though it would be great if the RIRs have an easy reporting mechanism for these cases so that end users can report against ISPs which are not willing to provide them with IP addresses. ISPs should be charging based on *bandwidth usage* not on IP usage. It is really strange that they do do that as they are paying their transits based on traffic too, not on the amount of addresses. Of course it is a great way to do business, but lousy for the enduser, and it will only really cause the thing that IPv6 was supposed to avoid: NAT or better said to be able to provide end-to-end connectivity. Alas, as long as ISPs can get away with it, they will most likely do so. Greets, Jeroen * currently, which is why the /56 thing has come up again, which IMHO might be a good idea as a /48 is an awful lot that I won't even use at home, though a /48 for every end-site is fine by me as it currently is too.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf