On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 14:49:37 +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
The other point is that one of the main arguments in that RFC is "if a customer changes ISPs, they will always get the same size prefix (a /48)", which is just not working if customers can very liberally get more than a /48 to account for "another-level-down end sites". So we're back to the address space haggling days, just argueing about the number of /48s instead the number of single IPs.
I don't agree. It's not just a customer. It's an ISP. If an ISP wants to switch from upstream provider, that's a big job. And some negotiation about prefix delegation is part of that. _End_ customers will get a /48. If they change ISP, they get a /48 again. Really big enterprise (end) customers with two or three /48s are not guaranteed to get the same amount of /48s from a new ISP. But I guess they will have a strong negotiating position.
So I still think that the concept of "one /48 for each site" without a proper definition of "site" is flawed. And yes, it's arguably pretty impossible to give a working definiton.
Yes, that's true. But "end customer" <--> "ISP" relations are pretty clear. Those will have /48 assignments. rvdp