[address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

Hi Jordi,

> 1) Policy text say: "... separate addresses (not prefixes) ...".
> 2) Max proposal say: "... or anything alike where devices of non-members of the organisation would get assigned an IP out of the organisation’s prefix ..."
> 3) Max proposal say: "... Explicitly allowing another entity to be provided with addresses from a subnet ..."
> 4) Max proposal say: "... A subnet in the spirit of this policy is a prefix from the PI/PA assignment with a prefix length of /64 or longer ..."
> 5) Max proposal say: "... or for housing/hosting for servers in data centres ..."
> 6) IA say: "... There are cases where a /64 is needed per customer to provide a separate address ..."
> 7) IA say: "... It is the RIPE NCCs understanding that assignments as described above are dynamic in nature, either by varying the prefix or interface identifier (IID) over time. Any permanent and static assignments of a prefix would still be considered a sub-assignment ..."
> 8) IA say: "... by using single IPv6 addresses for End User devices and services ..."
> 
> [...]
> 
> 5 seem to indicate that this is acceptable in data centres, but 7 says permanent and static ... I don't see how a data centre can do temporary addresses?

Now that is indeed a contradiction that I agree with. Here the NCC's interpretation is more strict than what the policy says, and that should be corrected. Marco, can you look at this again from the NCC's perspective?

Cheers,
Sander