[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI assignment policy

Hi Gert,

> So what's the user to do with this single address, and his network behind
> his router?  User IPv6 NAT/Masquerading?
>
> I strongly encourage you to re-think this approach.
>
> [..]
There won't be user's/customer's networks behind. All routers are part 
of the Freifunk infrastructure.
All users will be on temporary basis like a guest network. Form them 
there will be no use for more than a single address.
We are not going to use IPv6 NAT/Masquerading neither are we encouraging 
anyone to do so.
>> @Sascha Luck: I think the policy should reflect that as it does for IPv4.
>> Speaking in IPv4 this problem would not have occoured:
>> "IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service
>> provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service
>> provider's infrastructure."
>>
>> That problem has already been identified. (page 8)
>> https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/72-APWG_RS_Feedback_Final.pdf
> Yes, we're aware of that, but this is the old "a user only needs
> to have a single IP address, and can use NAT" world.
I think a device like a user's cell phone or laptop connecting doesn't 
need more the a single address.
And everyone needing a subnet must operate a Freifunk router on his/her own.
This router will be then part of the Freifunk community's infrastructure.
So he/she operating a part of the infrastructure won't be considered a user.
So there will be no problem in usage of the PI space except a "guest" 
user connecting temporarily.
Because their devices won't be considered as part of the Freifunk 
communities infrastructure.
>
> Since we do not want to encourage this model for IPv6, nobody has ever
> brought forward a proposal to allow this approach for IPv6 PI.
Will it be legimate to use adresses out of an PI assignment to lease 
them to users connecting temporarily?
Besides the Freifunk use case there are some company's guest networks 
which have the same need.
I don't think that the policy contains a statement about that. What do 
you think?
>
> (Now, I have no good answer what the Freifunk community *should* do.  I can
> understand that you're indeed set up quite differently than a traditional
> ISP - OTOH, you're not the only one who runs a network on a non-commercial
> basis and needs IPv6 addresses.  So using PA space from a friendly ISP in
> the neighbourhood - like, a /40 or even a /32 - might be a workable
> solution...  yes, renumbering will be nearly impossible, but right now
> the RIPE model doesn't really permit free rides "I want my own addreses,
> I want to run something that is similar to an ISP business, I want a slot
> in the global routing system, but I am not going to pay for it".  We might
> want to change our member structure to accomodate non-commercial LIRs - but
> that's a topic for the AGM to decide...)
The Freifunk community I requested the PI space for doesn't demand a 
free ride.
I tought that PI AS/space is the legitimate way for small orgs to get a 
slot in the global routing system. Isn't that the case?
The key difference between Freifunk and ISP business is that there is no 
service providing to anyone except temporary wireless users.
Everyone who wants more than just to use the network temporarily must 
operate his/her own router and get part of the Freifunk community's 
infrastructure.
The Freifunk communitiy is no instituation you can order a network 
service from. That's why there are no assignments of /64 to users.
>
> Gert Doering
>          -- APWG chair

Thanks,
Thomas