[address-policy-wg] ipv6 assignments

Apropos of one of those endless arguments on the Internet (where
everything is true, because it says it on the Internet), I had a
discussion with Kurtis about the definition of an ipv6 "End Site", which
is specified in section 2.9 of RIPE-655. This says:

> 2.9. End Site
>
> An End Site is defined as an End User (subscriber) who has a business or legal relationship (same or associated entities) with a service provider that involves:
>
> -    that service provider assigning address space to the End User
> -    that service provider providing transit service for the End User to other sites
> -    that service provider carrying the End User's traffic
> -    that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that contains the End User's assignment

Our reading of this is that each of these conditions is mandatory, i.e.
logical AND, because logical OR does not make sense.  Term 2.9.2 states
that an ipv6 End Site is only an End Site if the service provider is
providing transit service for the End User to other sites.

Section 5.4 and 5.4.1 then state:

> LIRs must make IPv6 assignments in accordance with the following provisions.
>
> End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their LIR or ISP. 

So the policy appears to state that an IPv6 assignment can only be
issued to an end user if the end user has a transit service to more than
one site, presumably ipv4 because demanding ipv6 connectivity would
create a circular requirement.

In other words, ipv4 connectivity to multiple different sites appears to
be a mandatory prerequisite in order to get an IPv6 assignment.

Could someone in the RIPE NCC please confirm that this policy is being
policed as stated? And if not, when can we expect all non-compliant
assignments in the RIPE NCC service region to be revoked?

Nick