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

Although I see the intent of the policy, the question that I have is : 

If a PI space holder is offering free wifi .. they are offering an access service for other to be used in their building or realm ... that qualifies as their infrastructure ... 

The users of the service, are not making any claims that they require a specific (set of) number assigned ... the user isn't moving into a contractual ( subscription ) agreement for it .. 
if we are under the current policy disallowing people using the usage of wifi, it would be similar to disallowing people coffee from the network connected coffee machine..  or not allowing guests walking through a hall with CTV camera's with PI IPv6... especially if they can see what the camera's are capturing on a screen ... /brrrr.    ;-) 

An assignment by policy, is setting aside a dedicated set of number(s) to be used by a party.  The current PI IPv6 policy does not allow further sub-assignments to third parties. And using the IP space isn't the same as getting an (sub-) assignment from that prefix.. 

Going into that kind of thinking would be similar to not allowing external voice calls to IPv6 PI assigned phones, because some third party should be able to make use of it.. 

This discussion is different if we are actually (commercially) hosting services on a (semi)permanent basis on the PI assigned space... like if a third party is actually offering webservice hosting or voip services over that WIFI .. 
But if the wifi is for regular public wifi access, to allow guests that roam in a public environment on an ad-hoc basis ... it falls perfectly under the current policy imho. 

That this might be open for interpertation, doesn't directly mean that the current policy is flawed.  I know from working with the NCC, that some of the IPRA's haven't been around since this particular policy was discussed and some might have different views .. 
So it is good that these particular corner cases are re-discussed from time to time imho..  

And I would also like to ask the NCC before we try to implement this into a change, how the NCC would see this and how the IPRA's are instructed currently on this, on how to evaluate this. ( before the formal IA further in the PDP ) 

Regards,
Erik Bais 


> Op 22 okt. 2016 om 11:17 heeft William Waites <ww at hubs.net.uk> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
>> A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification"
>> is now available for discussion.
> 
> I support this proposal as well. The current interpretation of the
> policy seems pathological to be honest. It could be supposed that given
> the Freifunk precedent, a local government (for example) would not be
> able to get a PI assignment because they provide complimentary Wifi in
> their lobby. I find it hard to believe that the original policy could
> have been intended to be read like this and indeed am a little surprised
> that the NCC has taken such an interpretation. So there is clearly a bug
> in the policy and this patch appears to fix it.
> 
> Best wishes,
> -w
> 
> -- 
> William Waites
> Network Engineer
> HUBS AS60241
>