Hello, am 21.10.2016 um 10:32 schrieb David Croft: > Strong support in principle. We have been denied IPv6 temporary > assignments due to the NCC's interpretation that a single DHCP lease > on wifi is a "subassignment" to another entity, which was clearly not > the intention.
I'm new to this, so please bear with my simple-mindedness here, but to me it looks like »the NCC's interpretation that a single DHCP lease on wifi is a "subassignment" to another entity« iswhat should be addressed, instead of special-caseing something intoan already complex policy document. Reading through ripe-655 multiple times, I can't find a basisfor counting an temporal, RA/DHCP-based, lease of PI space by an organisation holding Provider Independent Resources as a sub- assignment of a/128 prefix. Quoting the relevant definitions of ripe-655: ---8<--- 2.6. Assign To “assign” means to delegate address space to an ISP or End User for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate. Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other parties. […] 7. IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments To qualify for IPv6 PI address space, an organisation must meet therequirements of the policies described in the RIPE NCC document entitled “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resources Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”. The RIPE NCC will assign the prefix directly to the End User organisationsupon a request properly submitted to the RIPE NCC, either directly orthrough a sponsoring LIR. […] Assignments will be made from a separate 'designated block' to facilitate filtering practices. The PI assignment cannot be further assigned to other organisations. --->8--- An »assignment« therefore is something that – to prevent the word »assign« here – dedicates an address space to someone for a specifc purpose and this act needs to be registered (see 5, and esp. 5.5) in an RIR database. But PI assignments cannot be assigned further, as clearly stated. Operating a WiFi network for employees, relatives, event-visitors or even the general public (i. e. open WiFi, no WPA2) as an End User of Provider Independent Resources does not constitute an »assignment«, neither in terms of ripe-655 nor in real life. As far as I understand the process, this WG suggests the policies which the NCC implements? So, unless there was a previous call from this WG to the NCC to interpret things as it is reportedly done – which, from the comment, wasn't the case? –, why not just vote on a statement that NCC's interpretation is outside of the scope or intention of ripe-655? I mean, it's not the policy that's at fault here; there exists an _interpretation_, used by the RIPE NCC during evaluation of PI space requests, which at least to me is not even remotely covered by ripe-655. Don't mess with what's not broken, fix what is broken ;) Regards, -kai (End User since 1992) -- Kai Siering Schalückstraße 107, 33332 Gütersloh eMail: [email protected] ISN: 98735*1796 × Phone: +49 172 8635608 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Getdate firmly believes that years after 1999 do not exist; getdate will have to be killed by the year 2000." -- From the "Bugs" section of cnews-020592/libc/getdate.3
