Re: ISP DHCPv6 and /48

[John Curran <jcurran () istaff org>]

On Jul 10, 2015, at 6:34 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com> wrote:
> RIPE policy requires me to send in justification for review for any
> allocations larger than a /48. For a $35/month contract? Forget it, not
> going to happen. Plus it would be rejected
> ….
> It is just sad this is not compatible with the advice we are getting on
> NANOG to hand out /48. Because we can only do one /48. There is no
> justification that RIPE would accept to hand out more than a /48 to a
> residential end user, where the only issue is that the end user does not
> know how to split up his /48.
>
> If we did /56 (or /52) we could assign the full /48 in regards to RIPE but
> have our DHCPv6 server hand it out in pieces such as a /56 at a time. This
> would work for the users. But it is not so popular among some people here
> on NANOG. We would be limiting the user to a /56 if he only has a single
> CPE.
>
> ...
> Or maybe it is the RIPE policy that is the problem? I am not sure if the
> problem is any different for the other RIRs.

Baldur - 

    I am not aware of the RIPE practices with respect to IPv6 end-user assignments, 
    but in the ARIN region, ISPs/LIR's make assignments to end users based on similar 
    practices that the community adopted for ARIN’s end-user assignments.   To my 
    knowledge, ARIN does not review these ISP IPv6 end-user assignments (except 
    after the fact and in aggregate if an ISP were to come to ARIN seeking an additional
    IPv6 block due to utilization of the previous.)  

    Differences in policies between the regions is not necessarily any indication of a
    “problem”; it can just as easily be an appropriate reflection of different underlying 
    circumstances.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN