On Jan 26, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: [...]
Are you trying to limit the commercial freedom of ISPs to offer a range of products based around different sized networks?
Well, I think it is inevitabale to revisit that issue and to reopen that case. For 2 reasons:
- address space was never to be "sold" to end users by "volume", it was always to be provided on an as needed basis. Address space is not an ISPs "property" to be resold for profit. There are many other (better) ways to implement commercial freedom and product differentiation.
In the IPv4 world, the (marketing departments of) ISPs got away with (mis)using the scarcity argument for wiring the size of address blocks into the packages they are offering.
My personal view on that: the users got used to it and the community, including the RIRs were/are tolerating this approach.
There are more points to consider. If you have a policy that requires an LIR to always assign a /48 on any product at the request of the end user you take away the ability of the LIR to plan their utilisation rate for any network segment or their allocation overall. We need to be careful not to set up a situation where an LIR has to achieve a particular assignment density to qualify for a new allocation but cannot do this because customers are always entitled to a /48 rather than a /56. Just as importantly though, you create a policy without an enforceable appeal process or enforcement mechanism. That puts RIPE NCC staff in an untenable position where they have to implement a policy that is designed to see LIRs come back for address space very infrequently (see: 3.7) but does not give them the tools to enforce this right to always receive a /48. Regards, -- Leo Vegoda IANA Numbers Liaison