I am new to these discussions on the list, so if I am saying something stupid, please tell me so. At 17:35 13-5-2002, Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote:
At 17:27 +0000 13/5/02, Robert Blechinger wrote:
Hi Joao,
On Mon, 13 May 2002 17:08:17 +0200 "Joao Luis Silva Damas" <joao@ripe.net> wrote:
It is does not appear realistic to expect ISPs to "interview" each customer and ask them whether they intend to subnet or not.
so, you think it's not realistic to ask the customer if he intends to subnet or not ?
ipv4 view: why not to give all your dialup customers in ipv4 per default a /28 delegation, and the customer decides to do NAT, all in one subnet, or more subnets ?
no, i would give everyone /64 per default, unless the customer says, "no, i want to do subneting", then i will give him a /48 without discussion.
thats my point of view.
I don't have a point of view. A lot of people are telling me they will choose the /48 road. Without a detailed definition of site, almost everyone's view will have to be accepted. That's what I am seeing in all these discussions.
That is what has been bothering me the most in the whole discussion about who gets a /32 assignment and who doesn't. Both the number of /48 assignments as well as the determination of what an end-site is, are completely arbitrary and therefore in the long run unworkable. Almost everyone that is an LIR now, is able through one trick or another to justify an allocation of a /32 and as Joao points out, the RIR's won't be able to do anything against it. And then I wonder if in the long run we won't see a global routing mess, because many more organisations will be able to register as LIR and justify a /32 in the same way. This is exactly what the requirement for 200 potential sites tries to achieve, but fails to do. The community should be able to come up with a better definition of who should be allowed to get a /32 and who is condemned to go to an upstream provider. This should be more objective than the current rule and not result in the problems that we see now for RIR's and IXP's and smaller NREN's and ISP's, . I think we can evade a global routing slump if we allow the RIR's to continue the excellent work they have done in the last couple of years. They have conserved adresses well. But we should provide them with adequate rules to work with, so that they can aggregate well in the IPv6 future too.
The problem is the lack of arguments for an RIR on what is the right thing to do.
Joao
Let us provide them with the right arguments to do the right thing. Maybe we should take that discussion back to the global v6 list. Greetings, Rudolf van der Berg Dutch German Internet Exchange http://www.ndix.net