Re: [v6ops] What ie a site? (was: WGLC: draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-02)

["Delong.com" <[e-mail]>]

> On Nov 5, 2023, at 14:57, David Farmer <farmer=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I contend a site is a physical location within an organization's network. It's not an organization's entire network, as some seem to be claiming.

We struggled for quite a while with the definition of an “end site” for IPv6 addressing purposes at ARIN.

I believe what we finally settled on was something to the effect of “A single building or structure or a single tenant within a multi-tenant building or structure”.

So yes, that definition (deliberately) means that ARIN policy would allow a university to give a /48 to every dorm room occupant In their dormitories.

We wanted to make sure that the policy did not unintentionally limit potential use cases and figured we could trust operators to do relatively sane things given the flexibility to do so.

> Let's look at a medium-sized enterprise with 13 locations, in this first case, served by 13 different providers. In this case, each provider could assign a /48 to each of the organization's locations and still be within RIR policy. The organization would then have 13 separate /48 PA allocations.

Yes.

> If this organization, instead, purchased all 13 locations from a single provider, why should it be limited to a single /48?  Furthermore, if this organization qualified and wanted to go to its RIR for a direct allocation, why should it be limited to a single /48 allocation?

It should not… Indeed, it should, ideally get the same thing from the provider that it would receive if it approached ARIN as an end user — a /40. (If you had 12 locations, you’d get a /44, but ARIN allows for a minimum 25% free space in the nibble before you round up to the next nibble.

> This is an issue of RIR policy and should not be a direct consideration of the IPv6 architecture. However, the argument has been raised as an objection to this draft that an organization can only get a single /48 from RIPE. This is bad policy on RIPE's part and not a valid reason to keep this Draft from moving forward.

I don’t believe that is actually RIPE's policy. My recollection is that organizations with multiple sites can get a minimum of /48 for each site from RIPE via their sponsoring LIR. RIPE is obnoxious about direct allocations to end users.

> IPv6 addressing policy does need to consider conservation, but arbitrarily limiting organization to a single /48 isn't conservation.

Agreed.

Owen