[pekkas at netcore.fi: RIR ISP to end-user address allocation policy?]

On Wed, 16 May 2001, Gert Doering wrote:
[snip]
> > ---
> > * IAB/IESG recommended /48.
> > * Use a /128 where it is absolutely known that one and only one device is
> > required, e.g. dialup [<--!!!!!!!]
> > * Use a /64 when sure net will not be subnetted, e.g. a mobile phone given
> > 802.11, bluetooth, etc.
> > ---
> >
> > I find this thinking, or at least the examples very flawed.
> >
> > Anyone want to start implementing NATv6 for people whose ISP refuses to
> > give enough addresses to you can't (sub)network your home?
>
> The wording is perfectly clear: if you have more than one device, the
> ISP MUST give you a /64 (under that policy).  If you have more than one
> subnet, the ISP MUST give you a /48.

Yes.  I can already see the pricing:

One device: 20$
2+ devices: 40$
Network of devices: 60$

Would this kind of "voluntary" assignment work in practise?  I wouldn't
bet a penny on it; ISP's would just do /128 and write the customer
contracts so that the other methods would not be possible in practise.

Also, I do not see how a wireless device needs /64 when dial-up wouldn't.

I think it's common today that e.g. 2 home computers share an internet
connection.  With mobiles and other gadgets going IP this might increase.
If /128 assignment is the default, this by default would limit the options
people are given.  Someone frustrated with different pricing would write a
hack to do NATv6.  I don't think this should be encouraged.  The rules
should be set so that the default assignment is at least /64.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords