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

Hi there,

am 22.10.2016 um 16:28 schrieb Sander Steffann:
> This of course forced all ISPs to use PA space, but situations where the "ISP" vs "End user" boundary wasn't the classical one had problems. This was discussed on RIPE62 (https://ripe62.ripe.net/presentations/209-apwg.pdfstarting at slide 9, it took me a lot of effort trying to find that one, I couldn't imagine it already being 5 years ago) and because of that an effort was started to stop distributing different "colours" of address space and unify PA and PI.
>
> Unfortunately that effort failed because it turned out to cause too many complications (see https://ripe67.ripe.net/presentations/215-20131016_-_PA:PI_Unification_IPv6_Address_Space.pdf), which is why we are at the current policy and interpretation as presented 5 years ago:
>
>> - No DSL
>> - No Cable
>> - VPN
>> - No co-location
>> - No virtual servers
>> - No SSL hosting
>>
>> No buts and no exceptions
>
> And that's where we are today, and what this policy proposal is trying to change.

Sander, thanks for the historical context.

It explains this statement from the proposal: »Today, organisation
networks usually include some kind of guest networks, (public) WIFI
hotspots in their offices, PTP-VPN links to customers’ sites, or
anything similar where devices of non-members of the organisation
would get assigned an IP out of the organisation’s prefix. Strictly
following the current RIPE policy regarding eligibility for IPv6 PI
space, organisations aren't allowed to be provided with PI space when
this is the case.«

But there's nothing about that in ripe-655:»To qualify for IPv6 PI
address space, an organisation must meet the requirements of the
policies described in the RIPE NCC document entitled “Contractual
Requirements for Provider Independent Resources Holders in the RIPE
NCC Service Region” [reference goes to ripe-637 as of this writing].«

Thus, there seems to be a policy, and an interpretation of that
policy, the later hidden in some slides?

Now I do agree that the policy needs fixing, as it neither refers nor
at least mentions these »interpretations«. By policy's text, if you
sign the Independent Assignment Request and Maintenance Agreement with
a sponsoring LIR, you are qualified to receive IPv6 PI space, no?

BUT: how would the simple addition of »[w]ithin the context of these
policies, a sub-assignment is an assignment of a length of /64 or
shorter« will solve the issue that mentioning WiFi in the PI request
leads to it's refusal? (Note that »no WiFi« is not even present on
above's list.)

If above's »interpretation« is still the current one, it misses WiFi,
so that should not have led to refusal of PI assigments. If not, where
is the current one and how does the APWG influence it – and how does
the general public, e. g. an End User looking for PI space to IPv6-
number his or her gear once-and-for-all, learn about it?

Regards,
-kai

-- 
Kai Siering                        Schalückstraße 107, 33332 Gütersloh
eMail: Kai.Siering 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