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

What I’m trying to avoid is what I read as a contradiction among the policy text, the argumentation and the impact analysis, so I don’t really care about a fix number and I agree to let “it free” to avoid technology issues.

According to that, I guess this may work:

“Providing another entity with separate addresses (or a complete single prefix) from a subnet used on a link operated by the assignment holder is not considered a sub-assignment. This includes for example, letting visitors and/or employees (BYOD) connect to the assignment holder's network, connecting a server or appliance to an assignment holder's network and setting up point-to-point links with 3rd parties.”

The point is to avoid “(not prefixes)”, because I think not prefixes also excludes a single prefix.

Another alternative (I think is easier to understand the previous one, but just in case):

“Providing another entity with separate addresses (not multiple prefixes) from a subnet used on a link operated by the assignment holder is not considered a sub-assignment. This includes for example, letting visitors and/or employees (BYOD) connect to the assignment holder's network, connecting a server or appliance to an assignment holder's network and setting up point-to-point links with 3rd parties.”

Saludos,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
Fecha: lunes, 15 de enero de 2018, 22:11
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 To Last Call (IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification)

    Hi Jordi,
    
    > “Providing another entity with separate addresses (up to /64) from a subnet used on a link operated by the assignment holder is not considered a sub-assignment. This includes for example, letting visitors and/or employees (BYOD) connect to the assignment holder's network, connecting a server or appliance to an assignment holder's network and setting up point-to-point links with 3rd parties.”
    
    An explicit choice was made in this version that specifying fixed boundaries (like a /64) should be avoided to avoid dependencies on specific technology. Please compare version 1 and version 2 of this proposal. Your suggested change would therefore be a partial reversion to a version that didn't have consensus, which would not be appropriate at this point in the process.
    
    Cheers,
    Sander
    
    
    



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