[ipv6-wg] IPv6 Prefix delegation BCOP version 3 is out...

Hi Ondrej,

I think you somehow answered yourself. It is non-acceptable usage (according policy), and not just in RIPE but also the other RIRs.

Also, and ISP/LIR will never get a /48, so I don’t see the case. If an ISP applies for an end-user prefix, again, they will break the policy.

So in my opinion, this is out of the scope of this document. Let’s see if there are opinions on this …

Regards,
Jordi
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Ondřej Caletka <Ondrej.Caletka at cesnet.cz>
Responder a: <Ondrej.Caletka at cesnet.cz>
Fecha: lunes, 3 de julio de 2017, 16:33
Para: <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 Prefix delegation BCOP version 3 is out...

    Hello Jan, all,
    
    Dne 28.6.2017 v 17:23 Jan Zorz - Go6 napsal(a):
    > Agree. Look like we are heading for draft v.4 ;)
    > 
    > Let's collect more feedback and then fix the text...
    
    I have an amendment idea that I partially think it may have its place in
    the document.
    
    The thing is, many ISPs don't really understand the difference between
    resources (sub-)allocation and assignment. ISPs that are also LIRs just
    know they cannot assign more than /48 to a customer (end-site, to be
    precise ;) ). But if their customer is a small non-LIR ISP, who is
    requesting IP addresses for deploying IPv6 to its clients, they should
    not give them an assignment of shorter prefix but rather a suballocation
    or a aggregated assignment.
    
    If the small ISP only gets assigned /48 and tries to divide it to its
    customers, then not only is there little room for assigning "at least
    /56 to each customer" but it also is breaking the RIPE IPv6 policy by
    sub-assigning assignments.
    
    This is quite different situation from the IPv4 scenario, where small
    non-LIR ISP typically employ CGN, where it's completely valid to just
    use IP addresses assigned to the ISP itself. I already got a few
    questions concerning this topic.
    
    The questions are:
     1. Is this topic important enough to be in this document?
     2. Is this something RIPE-specific or is the situation in other RIRs
    similar?
    
    If you think it's worth it, I can try to draft some text around this topic.
    
    --
    Ondřej Caletka
    CESNET
    
    



**********************************************
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 use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.