Dear colleagues,
I would like to follow up on a topic I raised during RIPE 92 regarding
the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy [1].
Over the years, this working group discussed a number of policy
proposals to update the IPv6 policy framework. However, during recent
reviews and audit activities, Registration Services found that some
parts of the policy relating to the post-provisioning lifecycle could be
clarified and made more consistent through a policy discussion.
For example, while the term "audit" appears in some sections of the
policy text, there is no general reference to the audit procedure itself
(unlike in the IPv4 policy). While such reference is not a requirement
to perform an audit on IPv6 resources, it would make the RIPE NCC
mandate clearer to everyone.
In addition, the section dealing with policy compliance and
non-compliance has remained unchanged since 2002 and uses relatively
complex wording:
"[...] The policies in this document are based upon the understanding
that globally unique IPv6 unicast address space is licensed for use
rather than owned. Specifically, IP addresses will be allocated and
assigned on a license basis, with licenses subject to renewal on a
periodic basis. The granting of a license is subject to specific
conditions applied at the start or renewal of the license.
RIRs will generally renew licenses automatically, provided requesting
organisations are making a “good faith” effort at meeting the criteria
under which they qualified for or were granted an allocation or
assignment. However, in those cases where a requesting organisation is
not using the address space as intended, or is showing bad faith in
following through on the associated obligation, RIRs reserve the right
to not renew the license. Note that when a license is renewed, the new
license will be evaluated under and governed by the applicable IPv6
address policies in place at the time of renewal, which may differ from
the policy in place at the time of the original allocation or
assignment." [2]
While the intent of this text remains valid, some parts may be difficult
to grasp, particularly for those less familiar with RIPE policies and
their historical context.
As these sections primarily affect the RIPE NCC's role in assessing and
maintaining policy compliance after resources have been issued, I am
considering creating a policy proposal aimed at improving clarity and
consistency. The intention would be to clearly define the existing
framework rather than make substantive changes to the policy’s intent.
Before creating this proposal, I welcome feedback from the working group.
Do you think these parts of the IPv6 policy could benefit from review?
Are there other areas that you believe should be clarified, updated, or
taken into account if a proposal were developed?
Kind regards,
Marco Schmidt
Manager Registration Services
RIPE NCC
[1]
https://pretalx.ripe.net/media/ripe-92/submissions/JZ3KEL/resources/RIPE_92_Update_from__23Km8Xv.pdf
[2]
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-738/#41-address-space-not-to-be-considered-property
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options,
please visit:
https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/
As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings.
More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
