[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

Anno domini 2018 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg scripsit:

Hi Jordi,

>     none of this will change our decision, but it would make it more easy
>     to the rest of the readers to understand why you're so angry *right now*,
>     while neither the announcement of the extention nor the voices of support
>     in the four weeks following said announcement seem to have bothered you
>     in the least.
>
> [Jordi] I’m not angry at all, I just realized now that the text is not consistent. I think it has been clear in my previous email to Sander. I think now is clear that we all have the same view, but the text don’t look correct to me, unless the NCC don’t care and in  the evaluation they will read the arguments of the policy proposal, which I believe are confirming what I’m saying (trying to summarize: up to /64, temporary, not for broadband, not for “permanent” datacenter services).

As said before somewhere (I'm not sure wether on a RIPE meeting or
here on the list), the RS folks said, that they use the proposal text
as well as the summary/rationale as guidance what is allowed and what
isn't.

Maybe Ingrid, Andrea, Marco, * from the NCC can comment on that?

So to quote the proposal summary (last paragraph):

--snip--
Intended use cases for IPv6 PI space in the spirit of this policy
proposal are the use in (public) WIFI networks (like the WIFI at RIPE
meetings), as transfer networks on PNIs or other PTP-links/VPNs to
users or customers, or for housing/hosting for servers in data
centres. The use of IPv6 PI space for DSL/cable/FFTH/etc. subscribers
is explicitly not an intended use case for this policy proposal.
--snip--

That's quite clear IMHO (and does not fully match with your summary).

The obvious and long discussed goal of this whole thing still is to
make PI space useable again for "the little guy", community projects, etc.
As you well know the motivation to do so has risen with public WIFI
networks + SLAAC in mind, but any other means of address assignment to
clients (as you mentioned and the IA states) are OK as well. This is
the RIPE AP, it should not mention technical details which are subject
to change anyway.

Best
Max
-- 
"Does is bother me, that people hurt others, because they are to weak to face the truth? Yeah. Sorry 'bout that."
 -- Thirteen, House M.D.