On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Sander Steffann <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Now, the problem is that we never properly defined what a sub-assignment > in this context is. Just based on the language, every case where I tell you > to use an address is an assignment. If I were to give you a bit of paper > that says "you can use 2001:db8::1" then that is an assignment. I just > assigned 2001:db8::1 to you. (Yes, we could get into the discussion that > SLAAC isn't technically an assignment in this context but stateful DHCPv6 > is, but let's not go there). Basically, under the current policy, based on > the English language, letting any 3rd party use your IPv6 PI address space > is a violation of the policy. > I agree this needs to be fixed. > What this policy tries to define is what sub-assignment, and define it as > a /64 or more. So letting 3rd parties connect to your WiFi (which will > assign them a couple of addresses) is fine, as is letting someone host a > server on your network. But you're not allowed to give them their own /64 > or more. If you do that then (under the proposed policy text) you are > sub-assigning, which isn't allowed. > > Basically, what is proposed is: assigning separate addresses is fine, > whole subnets is not. > I think this is the right approach. +1 for support. > One of the things I would like to see discussed here is whether the > current text is doing what it is supposed to. Is putting a limit at /64 a > good criterium? I could comments like "this encourages people to make > non-/64 subnets" etc. On the other hand, say we would instead write in the > policy that assigning subnets to 3rd parties isn't allowed no matter which > size, would that make /127 point-to-point connections impossible? > I would be fine with /64 as the criterion, with the intention to revise the policy at some point if people abuse the policy (and their customers) by assigning subnets longer/smaller than /64. I would also be fine with something like "any assignment shorter/larger than /126" to make sure PtP links aren't covered, but any usable assignment would be. That might also discourage use of /112s for PtP links, though, which I don't have any problem with. I think on balance, the /64 cutoff is a reasonable starting point that could be adjusted later if needed. > Speaking as a chair: this issue has been around for a long time, and it > keeps coming up. Without us (this WG) giving extra guidance to the RIPE NCC > their interpretation of what we mean by "sub-assignment" can only be based > on the English language, where assignment without any further > qualification/quantification means *any* assignment, even if it's just a > single address. So I would like to properly define in policy what we as a > working group would like to happen. +1 -Scott
