[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Ok, here is it then. Hopefully we have a lot of fun and good noise ;-) (that's music?)

The main idea is to allow what Max (and many other people) needs in PI, but not having restrictions.

For that, what I’m proposing is:

1) Change the actual definition of Assign in 2.6, to:
2.6. Assign
To “assign” means to delegate address space to an ISP or End User for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate. Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other parties, with the exception of Provider Independent (PI).

2) Remove last paragraph in 7. IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments
So, REMOVE: The PI assignment cannot be further assigned to other organisations.

Rationale:

a. Arguments Supporting the Proposal
This proposal will avoid the situations of breaking existing policy when a network using PI is using the addressing space for point-to-point links or in cases such as providing connectivity to employee or visitor devices (BYOD), hot-spots, and similar situations.
At this way, regardless of if a single /128 or /64 is sub-assigned, and independently of what technology is used for that (SLAAC, DHCPv6, DHCPv6-PD), the restriction is no longer an issue.
 
b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal
It can be argued that this proposal could increase the number of PI request to RIPE NCC.

Mitigation/counter-argument: This is not an issue and should not be considered as a “bad-effect”.

The resulting policy could be used to circumvent the allocation policy, avoiding creating a LIR.

Mitigation/counter-argument: This seems not to have sense as there must be a justification process anyway, and because the starting point is /48, an ISP willing to connect customers, will really want to be an LIR. Furthermore, if we want to be restrictive on this, we could add a limitation that the maximum sub-assignment can be /64.


Thoughts?

Regards,
Jordi
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
Responder a: <gert at space.net>
Fecha: miércoles, 8 de noviembre de 2017, 11:09
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

    Hi,
    
    On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 10:47:09AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
    > So, in the morning of 25th I???ve prepared a draft version and
    > my co-author hasn???t provided any input back. I just resent it to
    > him and my next step is to send a copy to the co-chairs and Max in
    > private in a few seconds, so we can move on from there.
    
    Before coming up with finished new proposal text it might be a good
    idea to present your approach to the list and discuss the general 
    direction, and only then come up with a specific text to take WG 
    feedback into account.
    
    This is not the IETF where things have to start with elaborate drafts,
    we are at liberty to discuss first.  Speeds up things a bit :-) 
    
    Gert Doering
            -- APWG chair
    -- 
    have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
    
    SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
    Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
    D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
    Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
    



**********************************************
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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.