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

Moin,

just a quick reply as well.

Am 22.10.2016 um 23:30 schrieb Sander Steffann:

>
>> Let's play it through: The policy change gets approved and implemented, and now a /64 of my IPv6 PI for my WiFi is ok. (And giving a /64 or less to my kids/neighbour/barber is as well?) But, I actually operate two WiFis, one for the general public and one for my family. Thus, I now use a /63 in total, but only a /64 each, for WiFi. Ok, not ok?Ok, as: »Within the context of these policies, a sub-assignment is an assignment of a length of /64 or shorter.«
>>
>> (Actually, it would not be ok, as »/64 or shorter« still prohibts use of /64 for e. g. WiFi. The proposal therefore should read »/63 or shorter« or »shorter than /64«, I think, or SLAAC is not an option anymore.)
> You are misunderstanding. We're not talking about what you configure on your Wi-Fi, we're talking about what you delegate to third parties: the users of the Wi-Fi. Unless you assign a whole /64 to a single Wi-Fi user it's within the proposed policy.

Bear with me; I still cannot accept the conflicting-with-policy definition of »delegate« or »assign« in the context of RA or DHCPv6.

Proposal states: »As an example, some Freifunk Communities in Germany have been had their PI request declined because some 1-digit-number of subnets would have been used as IPv6 prefixes on public WIFIs. This usage of the IP space in the End User’s infrastructure has been interpreted as a sub-assignment of a /128 prefix. This would have been "assigned" to a user device of the public WIFI network as the device would get an IP address via SLAAC (or any other means for that matter).«

So, since anything _above_ /64 (e. g. /65 to /128) would be whitewashed by the proposal, using a whole /48 PA or PI for /64s for WiFis would be ok, as long as each WiFi user only gets less than a /64 »assigned«?

Proposal states: »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.«

These days I configure P2P links as /64 (with ::1 and ::2 being the endpoints), because ... people actually tried to hit me with cluebats when I carried over IPv4-behaviour of /32 or /31 links into IPv6 (/127). So, even after this proposal, I am not allowed to use my IPv6 PA or PI space to build P2P-links outside my organisation, e. g. for peering, with a netmask of /64? But at least anything above /64 (read: /127) in PI would be ok, which currently isn't, neither for PA nor PI?

Regards,
-kai