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

Not sure about the large number of lists here...  anyway...

On Wed, 16 May 2001, Gert Doering wrote:

> > * 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.

I suggest that in this world many ISP's will charge more for the /64
than the /128, and yet more for the /48 than the /64.  This means those
looking to save money (e.g. students, non-profit organizations, or just
cheap people like myself) will probably get the /128, and the next thing
you know there's NATng.

UltraCheapFastISP User Agreement:  

  "The USER agrees that only a single device will be connected and send
   data via the PROVIDER's facilities."

Personally I think this is fine, but then again I love NAT.  :)

Is it just me, or does the whole discussion seem academic?  Because when
many ISP's see the gazillions of addresses they get they're going to
allocate it in whatever way they want, and won't bother the RIR's for
more space for decades.  The only other alternative I see is proactive
policing by the RIR's, and I think very few people want that.  (I surely
don't.)

--
Shane "speaking only for myself" Kerr