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

This is also my interpertation... 

If you use DHCP of any kind on the network to randomly provide a number for a device to connect to the network on a temp lease, it isn't an assignment to the letter of the policy. That is also not how the intent of the policy was written. 

If you assign a number or subnet to a specific device and that is fixed in the configuration, so the next time you connect, you will get the same number/subnet, you can see that as an assignment. Especially if that is part of a contractual agreement / service / subscription.  Most users/devices are looking for a single digit number, not a subnet for their connectivity need. 

The difference between the two is in the duration and the expectation. 
Most roaming wifi users won't be asking for a complete subnet or prefix on their laptop or hosting services / third party apps on a wifi link ... 

Most wifi users just want to avoid telco charges while listening to spotify, skype or watch youtube/twitch/netflix while in a waiting room .. or do some whatsapp while in a wiating room of their healthcare provider.. these are not permanent roamers lurkers to avoid RIPE charges or trying to scam their infra behind some public provided wifi connection.  
If the specific wifi/network implementation required to use a /64 or smaller per connecting device/user, for security reasons for instance, it would still be the same if those prefixes would be selected dynamically. 

If the situation is as stated above, the usage should be perfectly within the current policy.  

Regards,
Erik Bais


> Op 23 okt. 2016 om 10:11 heeft JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> If I’ve a PI for my company … and I offer WiFi for the laptops or phones of my employees, and their families and customers when they come to my office … are those assignments? Clearly they are “others”, not the same organization that got the PI.
> 
> That’s why I think we need to consider that assignment is for infrastructure, not end devices, at least this seems to be my reading of the definition.
> 
> Saludos,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no>
> Responder a: <tore at fud.no>
> Fecha: domingo, 23 de octubre de 2016, 10:06
> Para: Kai 'wusel' Siering <wusel+ml at uu.org>
> CC: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net Working Group" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
> 
>    Hi Kai,
> 
>    * Kai 'wusel' Siering
> 
>> (Which, btw, means there's no difference between PA and PI here.
>> Thus, End Users must not use DHCPv6 nor WiFi, with NCC'scurrent
>> interpretation. Eeks.)
>> 
>> [...]
> 
>>> And 3rd party usage of IPv6 PI addresses is currently not allowed.  
>> 
>> Well, if reading the policy that way, neither is it for non-PI space?
> 
>    I think you're right. An assignment is an assignment.
> 
>    If the policy currently disallows using assignments (PI or PA) for
>    things like wireless networks for guests, then I'd say that 2016-04
>    doesn't go far enough.
> 
>    Tore 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
>