Rather than explain each part of your text, I think it would be more useful if you explained where my text doesn’t convey the same intent.
Owen > On Sep 10, 2018, at 22:16 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> > wrote: > > Hi Owen, all, > > In previous versions I tried to make a shorter text and didn’t worked. > > Let me try to explain each part: > > “Providing addressing space to third party devices including addresses for > point-to-point links” > > This covers the case of a subcontractor with devices siting on the holders > network may be for several years, and in this case they are “permanently” > connected (during the duration of the contract), explained in my problem > statement as: > > 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. > > Of course, the 2nd part of the sentence is for the point-to-point links, I > think that’s very obvious. > > “and/or non-permanently providing addressing space to third Parties” > > This covers the other cases, BYOD (employee or guest of a corporation, > student of a university, visitor in a hot-spot, etc.), which are more > commonly for some hours or minutes, even days. > > “The provision of addressing space for permanent or semi-permanent > connectivity, > such as broadband services, is still considered a sub-assignment.” > > We want to make sure that ISPs, typically offering broadband services, aren’t > end-users, as they should be LIRs. > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > > > De: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com <mailto:o...@delong.com>> > Fecha: martes, 11 de septiembre de 2018, 15:29 > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es > <mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>> > CC: Satoru Tsurumaki <satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp > <mailto:satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp>>, SIG policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net > <mailto:sig-pol...@apnic.net>> > Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4 > > Aside from the question of examples or not examples, I offer the following > suggestion… The wording is quite awkward and difficult to parse. So much so, > I am not 100% certain of the intent. > > I offer the following suggestion for a rewrite hoping that I have captured > the intent accurately: > > ======= > > Providing IP number resources to third party devices, including addresses for > point-to-point links or addresses provided on an impermanent basis, for use > on a network managed and operated by the assignment holder shall not be > considered a sub-assignment. > > Providing IP number resources for permanent or semi-permanent connectivity, > such as broadband services is still considered a sub-assignment. > > ======= > > Owen > > > >> On Sep 10, 2018, at 20:55 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es >> <mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>> wrote: >> >> 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 >> <mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net>> en nombre de Satoru Tsurumaki >> <satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp >> <mailto:satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp>> >> Fecha: martes, 11 de septiembre de 2018, 14:02 >> Para: SIG policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net <mailto: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 >> <mailto: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 >>> <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 <mailto: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 >>> >>> <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 >>> >>> <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 <mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> >>> https://www.mls.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 <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> >>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>> <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 >> <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy> >> >> ********************************************** >> IPv4 is over >> Are you ready for the new Internet ? >> http://www.consulintel.es <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 <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy> > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.consulintel.es <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
