Tony Li wrote: >> > >> 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. > > > Could you please site chapter and verse? Here's what I can find: > > http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six54 > > 6.5.4.1. Assignment address space size > > End-users are assigned an end site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The > exact size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to > make, using a minimum value of a /64 (when only one subnet is > anticipated for the end site) up to the normal maximum of /48, except in > cases of extra large end sites where a larger assignment can be justified. Thanks for quoting exactly the correct portion as that part exactly explains what the ISP is supposed to do. Except that the boundary here is worse than what is being proposed, the boundary in the above case is /64 - /48. For instance /128 is not allowed to be assigned to an end-user. They will have to provide at least a /64, but as not "exactly one subnet is anticipated for the end site" they will have to provide more than that single /64. As the proposal currently on PPML has, it tries to standardize the size of the prefix actually given away. In IETF talk the 'rule' has always been /128 if only one IP, /64 for a single subnet, /48 for anything else (see the architecture RFC's). Proposed now is to add a /56 for home-user sites, and 2 other prefix sizes (which IMHO are a bit overdone). >> ISPs should be charging based on *bandwidth usage* not on IP usage. > > > Sorry, ISPs charge based on providing a *service*. Yes, that includes > bandwidth (and generally flat bandwidth, not usage) and also other > components (DHCP, addressing, DNS, email, web hosting, spam filtering, > etc). Strange that many ISPs charge *specifically* for more IPv4 addresses. But that is IPv4 addresses, I hope that the RIR's can make very clear to the ISPs in question that they are getting a IPv6 /32 based on the mere fact that they can then assign /48's to their endusers. Someone mentioned the Comcast case, unfortunately for those users, Comcast clearly only has the intention of using the /32 for provisioning the CPE's, they won't be providing /48's from that block. If they where going to do that, they really have to go back to ARIN and request something in the vicinity of a /20, as that would actually cover the x million customers they have. Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf