Hi Satoru,
Thanks for commenting on this. The current proposal text has not examples, I think it is quite neutral in this aspect: Providing addressing space to third party devices including addresses for point-to-point links and/or non-permanently providing addressing space to third parties, for use on a network managed and operated by the assignment holder, shall not be considered a sub-assignment. The provision of addressing space for permanent or semi-permanent connectivity, such as broadband services, is still considered a sub-assignment. I think having the examples in the “objective” of the policy proposal is needed to clarify the reason for it. You don’t think so? Regards, Jordi De: <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> en nombre de Satoru Tsurumaki <satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp> Fecha: martes, 11 de septiembre de 2018, 14:02 Para: SIG policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net> Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4 Dear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum. I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-124, based on a meeting we organised on 22nd Aug to discuss these proposals. Many supporting opinions were expressed on this proposal. However, also many concerning comment was expressed to explain the specific examples. For this matter, the same opinion was given also at JPOPM34. - It is better to stop specific examples because they tend to fall into discussion of adding / not applying / not applicable. - I think that specific examples should be stated in the guidelines rather than policies. Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki 2018-09-09 18:37 GMT+11:00 Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherr...@micrologic.nc>: Dear SIG members A new version of the proposal "prop-124: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. Information about earlier versions is available from: https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-124 You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: · Do you support or oppose the proposal? · Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? · What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? Please find the text of the proposal below. Kind Regards, Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs prop-124-v004: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com 1. Problem Statement When the policy was drafted, the concept of assignments/sub-assignments did not consider a practice very common in IPv4 which is replicated and even amplified in IPv6: the use of IP addresses for point-to-point links or VPNs. In the case of IPv6, instead of unique addresses, the use of unique prefixes (/64) is increasingly common. Likewise, the policy failed to consider the use of IP addresses in hotspots, or the use of IP addresses by guests or employees in Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) and many other similar cases. One more case is when an end-user contracts a third-party to do some services in their own network and they need to deploy their own devices, even servers, network equipment, etc. For example, security surveillance services may require that the contractor provides their own cameras, recording system, even their own firewall and/or router for a dedicated VPN, etc. Of course, in many cases, this surveillance system may need to use the addressing space of the end-user. Finally, the IETF has recently approved the use of a unique /64 prefix per interface/host (RFC8273) instead of a unique address. This, for example, allows users to connect to a hotspot, receive a /64 such that they are “isolated” from other users (for reasons of security, regulatory requirements, etc.) and they can also use multiple virtual machines on their devices with a unique address for each one (within the same /64). 2. Objective of policy change Section 2.2.3. (Definitions/Assigned Address Space), explicitly prohibits such assignments, stating that “Assigned ... may not be sub-assigned”. https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#2.2.3.-Assigned-address-space This proposal clarifies this situation in this regard and better define the concept, particularly considering new uses of IPv6 (RFC 8273), by means of a new paragraph. 3. Situation in other regions This situation, has already been corrected in RIPE, and the policy was updated in a similar way, even if right now there is a small discrepancy between the policy text that reached consensus and the RIPE NCC Impact Analysis. A new policy proposal has been submitted to amend that, and the text is the same as presented by this proposal at APNIC. Same text has also been submitted to AfriNIC, LACNIC and ARIN. 4. Proposed policy solution Add a new paragraph after the existing one in 2.2.3 https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#2.2.3.-Assigned-address-space Actual text: 2.2.3. Assigned address space Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or end-user, for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate. Assignments must only be made for specific, documented purposes and may not be sub-assigned. New text: 2.2.3. Assigned address space Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or end-user, for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate. Assignments must only be made for specific, documented purposes and may not be sub-assigned. Providing addressing space to third party devices including addresses for point-to-point links and/or non-permanently providing addressing space to third parties, for use on a network managed and operated by the assignment holder, shall not be considered a sub-assignment. The provision of addressing space for permanent or semi-permanent connectivity, such as broadband services, is still considered a sub-assignment. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making sure to match the real situation in the market. Disadvantages: None foreseen. 6. Impact on resource holders None 7. References Links to RIPE policy amended and new policy proposal submitted. Cordialement, Bertrand Cherrier Administration Systèmes - R&D Micro Logic Systems b.cherr...@micrologic.nc https://www.mls.nc Tél : +687 24 99 24 VoIP : 65 24 99 24 SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min) * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy ********************************************** 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 exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
