On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:40:36AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Agree, let's go the 200 customers, but keep the /48. Otherwise in order to be coherent, lets change RFC3177 also (which I will not agree).
De: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
The 200 thing can go indeed. The /48, which is the minimum assignment towards that endsite must stay. Otherwise there will be ISP's who are going to give out /56's, /58's, /60's, /62's etc.
The reason for the _minimum_ of a /48 is that when you want to change over to another ISP that you can get the equally sized /48. Or do you want to get, say, 3 IPv6's IP's from your upstream ISP?
If you are so extremely big that you need multiple /48's (which contain 65k /64's as you will know) you are also more than capable of getting your own TLA under the new proposed #gamma policy, and most people will most likely going to just that for a large amount of reasons, especially because they simply want 'an entry in the routing table'...
I'm just not sure this is something we want to be setting in stone. Granted once clause 'd' about 200 assignments is gone, the requirement to assign /48s would no longer seem to be an obstacle for LIRs' allocation request. However, logic still stands that even though one size (/48) may be big enough to contain just about all end-site networks it almost certainly doesn't fit them all. I agree wholeheartedly that RFC3177 should stay. However, RFC3177 contains a recommendation as to how to assign your address space, and we already draw attention to this in ripe-267 5.4.1. So it seems unnecessary (and maybe a little contradictory) to restate its recommendations as requirements; it strikes me that this should be a choice for ISPs to make and for customers to act on rather than making it a box to be ticked when making your allocation request. Andy -- Andy Furnell <andy@linx.net> Mob: +44 (0) 7909 680019 London Internet Exchange http://www.linx.net