[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hello,

am 21.10.2016 um 10:32 schrieb David Croft:
> Strong support in principle. We have been denied IPv6 temporary
> assignments due to the NCC's interpretation that a single DHCP lease
> on wifi is a "subassignment" to another entity, which was clearly not
> the intention.

I'm new to this, so please bear with my simple-mindedness here,
but to me it looks like »the NCC's interpretation that a single
DHCP lease on wifi is a "subassignment" to another entity« iswhat
should be addressed, instead of special-caseing something intoan
already complex policy document.

Reading through ripe-655 multiple times, I can't find a basisfor
counting an temporal, RA/DHCP-based, lease of PI space by an
organisation holding Provider Independent Resources as a sub-
assignment of a/128 prefix.

Quoting the relevant definitions of ripe-655:
---8<---
2.6. Assign

To “assign” means to delegate address space to an ISP or End User
for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate.
Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented
by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other
parties.

[…]

7. IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments

To qualify for IPv6 PI address space, an organisation must meet
therequirements of the policies described in the RIPE NCC document
entitled “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resources
Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”.

The RIPE NCC will assign the prefix directly to the End User
organisationsupon a request properly submitted to the RIPE NCC,
either directly orthrough a sponsoring LIR.

[…]

Assignments will be made from a separate 'designated block' to
facilitate filtering practices.

The PI assignment cannot be further assigned to other organisations.
--->8---

An »assignment« therefore is something that – to prevent the word
»assign« here – dedicates an address space to someone for a specifc
purpose and this act needs to be registered (see 5, and esp. 5.5)
in an RIR database. But PI assignments cannot be assigned further,
as clearly stated.

Operating a WiFi network for employees, relatives, event-visitors or
even the general public (i. e. open WiFi, no WPA2) as an End User
of Provider Independent Resources does not constitute an
»assignment«, neither in terms of ripe-655 nor in real life.

As far as I understand the process, this WG suggests the policies
which the NCC implements? So, unless there was a previous call from
this WG to the NCC to interpret things as it is reportedly done –
which, from the comment, wasn't the case? –, why not just vote on
a statement that NCC's interpretation is outside of the scope or
intention of ripe-655?

I mean, it's not the policy that's at fault here; there exists
an _interpretation_, used by the RIPE NCC during evaluation of PI
space requests, which at least to me is not even remotely covered
by ripe-655. Don't mess with what's not broken, fix what is broken ;)

Regards,
-kai (End User since 1992)

-- 
Kai Siering                        Schalückstraße 107, 33332 Gütersloh
eMail: wusel at uu.org           ISN: 98735*1796 × Phone: +49 172 8635608
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Getdate firmly  believes that years after 1999 do not exist;  getdate
 will have to be killed by the year 2000."
             -- From the "Bugs" section of cnews-020592/libc/getdate.3