[address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

Hi Sascha,

I see your point on the last sentence. The idea of that is avoiding someone to have the bright idea to use the point-to-point links to offer permanent service by means of "IPv6 NAT/NPT".

Maybe the wording is not the best. I just figured out an alternative one:

"The addressing of the point-to-point link can be permanent; however, it can't be used as an artifact to avoid provisioning IPv6 addresses to circumvent this policy."

May be the NCC can check if this make sense in english, or someone else can provide some other suggestions about how to say it, withou explicit mention to "IPv6 NAT/NPT" (which are just examples, as we could though in any way of "proxying", etc., and we prefer to avoid mentioning what technology ...).

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de "Sascha Luck [ml]" <apwg at c4inet.net>
Fecha: martes, 17 de abril de 2018, 18:53
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy)

    Hi Jordi,
    
    On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 04:57:20PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
    >I've created an "online diff" so you can compare the actual text, with my proposal:
    >
    >https://www.diffchecker.com/SMXYO2rc
    
    I have several issues with the proposal:
    
    1) It perpetuates what may have been a good idea in 1990, viz the
    PI/PA distinction, into IPv6. IMO it's long past time to stop
    having special classes of addresses and to treat them as what
    they are, numbers.
    
    2) It looks a lot like micro-management, trying to make policy
    for every edge case. Having said that, it seems to be necessary
    as the NCC is using an unreasonable interpretation of existing
    policy.
    
    3) the last sentence of the policy text: 
    "Only the addressing of
    the point-to-point link itself can be permanent and that
    addressing can't be used (neither directly or indirectly) for the
    actual communication."
    makes neither grammatical nor technical sense. 
    for one thing, it's always "either/or" or "neither/nor" and
    neither/nor mustn't be used after a preceding negative ("can't").
    For the other, if this point-to-point assignment can't even *indirectly* be used
    for communication, it can't be used for *anything* as traffic
    from the downstream /64 would surely be routed via the
    point-to-point link, thus using its addresses...
    
    That said, I'd see no reason not to support the proposal *if*
    that last sentence is removed (it's unneccessarily specific and
    technically prohibitive)
    
    Kind Regards,
    Sascha Luck
    
    
    >
    >
    >Regards,
    >Jordi
    >
    >
    >-----Mensaje original-----
    >De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
    >Responder a: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
    >Fecha: martes, 17 de abril de 2018, 16:52
    >Para: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
    >Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
    >
    >    Hi all,
    >
    >    As you probably remember, during the discussion of the recently implemented 2016-04, I complained that we should not approve a policy proposal with a wording that creates (in my opinion), discrepancies between the NCC impact analysis and the policy text.
    >
    >    I was suggested that it can always be improved ... so that's what I'm doing here.
    >
    >    I've also suggested the same text in the other 4 RIRs with equivalent policy proposal, because all them have the same problem.
    >
    >    The main point is to clarify the actual interpretation to make clear that it is allowed from up to a single /64, to use non-permanently, any number of addresses (not just a single one).
    >
    >    So basically, what I'm saying is:
    >    1) Is not a sub-assignment a point-to-point (maximum a /64) even if this is permanent. However, the point-to-point can't be used as permanent addressing for "actual" transit (so you can't use the point-to-point addressing and then makeup an IPv6 NAT/NPT, or something similar for devices behind it).
    >    2) Is not a sub-assignment up to a /64 if non-permanent. Example a device in a hot-spot, with use multiple addresses (example, VMs) from a single /64, or the same situation if an employee brings any kind of device to the enterprise WiFi or wired network.
    >
    >    This means that I'm excluding the case of a data center allocating *permanent* /64 to server interfaces (non-permanent will be ok). Remember that this is for PI, and my personal opinion on this is that, a datacenter, should be an LIR, so using PA.
    >
    >    This is an open question here, and I may be wrong.
    >
    >    So, what do you think on the overall proposal and specially in this last point (data center can be PI and then we should have a more complex text that allows that case)?
    >
    >    Thanks!
    >
    >    Regards,
    >    Jordi
    >
    >
    >    -----Mensaje original-----
    >    De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net>
    >    Fecha: martes, 17 de abril de 2018, 15:55
    >    Para: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
    >    Asunto: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 New Policy Proposal (Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy)
    >
    >        Dear colleagues,
    >
    >        A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-02, "Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy" is now available for discussion.
    >
    >        This proposal aims to clarify the definition of ╲Assign╡ in ripe-699 (section 2.6). The non-permanent provision of up to a /64 prefix to third parties shall not be considered a sub-assignment.
    >
    >        You can find the full proposal at:
    >        https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-02
    >
    >        As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer.
    >
    >        At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal.
    >
    >        We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 15 May 2018.
    >
    >        Regards,
    >
    >        Marco Schmidt
    >        Policy Officer
    >        RIPE NCC
    >
    >        Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >    **********************************************
    >    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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >**********************************************
    >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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    
    



**********************************************
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.