[address-policy-wg] inconsistency in 2016-04

(sorry Jim ! subject replaced)

Hi Sander,

Below in-line.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
Fecha: viernes, 19 de enero de 2018, 12:13
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
CC: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean

    Hi,
    
    > 1) Temporary always ? clearly not for point-to-point links, no-sense for data centers?
    
    Indeed, this is what I asked Marco.
    
    > 2) Single address (/128) for a single device (so the device can't use privacy? Utopia!), or do we allow if the devices get a single-prefix, it uses multiple addresses out of that prefix (so we allow VMs in the device also)
    
    The policy talks about single-address increments. It doesn't say "one address", it says "separate addresses" (plural), which allows for privacy extensions etc.

Right, but 6) IA say: "... There are cases where a /64 is needed per customer to provide a separate address ..." and 8) IA say: "... by using single IPv6 addresses for End User devices and services ..." furthermore it say "... provided no prefixes will be provided to other entities ..." I think this can be sorted out replacing in the IA "provided no more than a single prefix will be provided to other entities."

    
    > 3) Can the device use any technology (such as prefix sharing, eg. RFC7278), to also use addresses from a single prefix for other devices (same user)
    
    Technology used is out of scope here.

I used the technology as an example, what I'm referring is if the single prefix can be shared by other devices of the user of a hot-spot (example, the hotel gives me a single /64 in the WiFi, but I've several devices). The point here is, clarification 2 above will solve the problem for multiple addresses in a single prefix, 3) may solve the problem for multiple devices with the same prefix. For both of them we may need to clarify if Max "not prefixes" is meaning also a single prefix or "not multiple prefixes", which is I think the major contradiction with the IA or NCC interpretation according to mail exchange with Marco.

    
    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.