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

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:

>
> Now, the problem is that we never properly defined what a sub-assignment
> in this context is. Just based on the language, every case where I tell you
> to use an address is an assignment. If I were to give you a bit of paper
> that says "you can use 2001:db8::1" then that is an assignment. I just
> assigned 2001:db8::1 to you. (Yes, we could get into the discussion that
> SLAAC isn't technically an assignment in this context but stateful DHCPv6
> is, but let's not go there). Basically, under the current policy, based on
> the English language, letting any 3rd party use your IPv6 PI address space
> is a violation of the policy.
>

I agree this needs to be fixed.


> What this policy tries to define is what sub-assignment, and define it as
> a /64 or more. So letting 3rd parties connect to your WiFi (which will
> assign them a couple of addresses) is fine, as is letting someone host a
> server on your network. But you're not allowed to give them their own /64
> or more. If you do that then (under the proposed policy text) you are
> sub-assigning, which isn't allowed.
>
> Basically, what is proposed is: assigning separate addresses is fine,
> whole subnets is not.
>

I think this is the right approach.  +1 for support.


> One of the things I would like to see discussed here is whether the
> current text is doing what it is supposed to. Is putting a limit at /64 a
> good criterium? I could comments like "this encourages people to make
> non-/64 subnets" etc. On the other hand, say we would instead write in the
> policy that assigning subnets to 3rd parties isn't allowed no matter which
> size, would that make /127 point-to-point connections impossible?
>

I would be fine with /64 as the criterion, with the intention to revise the
policy at some point if people abuse the policy (and their customers) by
assigning subnets longer/smaller than /64.  I would also be fine with
something like "any assignment shorter/larger than /126" to make sure PtP
links aren't covered, but any usable assignment would be.  That might also
discourage use of /112s for PtP links, though, which I don't have any
problem with.  I think on balance, the /64 cutoff is a reasonable starting
point that could be adjusted later if needed.


> Speaking as a chair: this issue has been around for a long time, and it
> keeps coming up. Without us (this WG) giving extra guidance to the RIPE NCC
> their interpretation of what we mean by "sub-assignment" can only be based
> on the English language, where assignment without any further
> qualification/quantification means *any* assignment, even if it's just a
> single address. So I would like to properly define in policy what we as a
> working group would like to happen.


+1

-Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161022/75b9e41a/attachment.html>