Re: [lir-wg] IPv6 assignments to RIPE itself
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:10:23 +0100
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
