Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-shishio-v6ops-dpvt

>> 
>> Let's take the DHCP-PD case, I assume that the IP resource planning goes hand in hand
>> with the number of subscribers the ISP is expecting to serve. The operator needs to decide
>> on the prefix-length to be delegated down to the subscriber and that's it, so they can
>> plan enough prefixes per access area. The operator does not need to know if/how I am using
>> my delegated prefix. They should be happy to give/sell me another prefix if needed.
>> 
>> Can you please clarify what's the benefit from Operator's point of view?
> 
> Yes,this is ideal planning.

We can agree to disagree on your use of the term "ideal" in this context.

> And RIR also has published guide line of IPv6 assignment for enduser.
> http://www.apnic.net/publications/media-library/documents/resource-guidelines/ipv6-guidelines

I'm not a particular fan of this document and have given APNIC feedback on it.

> RFC6177 was published as BCP.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6177
> 

True. I wasn't participating actively in IETF at the time 6177 was written. IMHO, it is a travesty of v4 thinking being brought forward into IPv6 and should be considered harmful rather than BCP. It is neither common, nor best practice in my experience so far in the IPv6 world.

I will point out that no RIR provides any policy penalty for sticking with /48s and several of them actually provide benefits if you do so. Notably, ARIN policy is now based on the smallest prefix you assign to end users, so if you assign some end-users /64s and some /48s, you have to justify 65,536 /64s for each of your /48s assigned. OTOH, if you just give everyone a /48, you can just count up the number of /48s you assigned and each end user getting
a /48 is considered completely legitimate.

> Most of ISP used be provided /48 by dhcp-pd and when after RFC3177 obsoleted, they changed it to /56 and more shorter.

I believe you mean and longer. This is an unfortunate change that we can hopefully reverse before it becomes too entrenched and does too much harm.

> If the policy would be changed ,then operator should understand how delegated prefix are using.
> This is reason of the feature could provide to operators benefit ,I thought.
> 

There is no policy that prevents assigning /48s. Only a BCP that was poorly conceived.

Owen

> Thanks for your feedback.
> 
> Regards,
> -Shishio
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>> So I thought these technologies need small oam tools.
>>> 
>>> -confirm only interface configuration from ISP side
>>> -confirm reachability not use end to end
>>> 
>>> I would appreciate any comment.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> -Shishio
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Ales
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops