Fully agree. Using addresses to provide temporary Internet connectivity to “visiting” users should not be considered as an assignment, and in fact looking into my notes, when I presented the IPv6 PI policy proposal, I’d this clearly pictured in my mind.
So I don’t think we need this change. The Assignment definition mentions Internet infrastructure: 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. In my opinion devices visiting a hot spot AREN’T Internet infrastructure. So if there is a need for clarification, it is not just for the PI policy, but a more global scope in the section 2.6, o even a new section depicting what is “Internet infrastructure”. For example, the CPE of a customer it is infrastructure, but not the devices behind it. Let’s put it in another way. If the hot spot allows a router to “connect” to the hot spot and get assigned a /64, then this router is allowing “other” devices to connect, so in this case it is network infrastructure. Saludos, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: address-policy-wg <[email protected]> en nombre de Erik Bais - A2B Internet <[email protected]> Responder a: <[email protected]> Fecha: sábado, 22 de octubre de 2016, 13:07 Para: William Waites <[email protected]> CC: <[email protected]> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification) Although I see the intent of the policy, the question that I have is : If a PI space holder is offering free wifi .. they are offering an access service for other to be used in their building or realm ... that qualifies as their infrastructure ... The users of the service, are not making any claims that they require a specific (set of) number assigned ... the user isn't moving into a contractual ( subscription ) agreement for it .. if we are under the current policy disallowing people using the usage of wifi, it would be similar to disallowing people coffee from the network connected coffee machine.. or not allowing guests walking through a hall with CTV camera's with PI IPv6... especially if they can see what the camera's are capturing on a screen ... /brrrr. ;-) An assignment by policy, is setting aside a dedicated set of number(s) to be used by a party. The current PI IPv6 policy does not allow further sub-assignments to third parties. And using the IP space isn't the same as getting an (sub-) assignment from that prefix.. Going into that kind of thinking would be similar to not allowing external voice calls to IPv6 PI assigned phones, because some third party should be able to make use of it.. This discussion is different if we are actually (commercially) hosting services on a (semi)permanent basis on the PI assigned space... like if a third party is actually offering webservice hosting or voip services over that WIFI .. But if the wifi is for regular public wifi access, to allow guests that roam in a public environment on an ad-hoc basis ... it falls perfectly under the current policy imho. That this might be open for interpertation, doesn't directly mean that the current policy is flawed. I know from working with the NCC, that some of the IPRA's haven't been around since this particular policy was discussed and some might have different views .. So it is good that these particular corner cases are re-discussed from time to time imho.. And I would also like to ask the NCC before we try to implement this into a change, how the NCC would see this and how the IPRA's are instructed currently on this, on how to evaluate this. ( before the formal IA further in the PDP ) Regards, Erik Bais > Op 22 okt. 2016 om 11:17 heeft William Waites <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: > > >> A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-04, "IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification" >> is now available for discussion. > > I support this proposal as well. The current interpretation of the > policy seems pathological to be honest. It could be supposed that given > the Freifunk precedent, a local government (for example) would not be > able to get a PI assignment because they provide complimentary Wifi in > their lobby. I find it hard to believe that the original policy could > have been intended to be read like this and indeed am a little surprised > that the NCC has taken such an interpretation. So there is clearly a bug > in the policy and this patch appears to fix it. > > Best wishes, > -w > > -- > William Waites > Network Engineer > HUBS AS60241 > ********************************************** 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.
