Hi Adam,
Responding below, in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 17/2/20 11:54, "Adam Gosling" <em...@adamgosling.com> escribió:
Hi Jordi
My comments are inline
New version:
2.2.3. Assigned address space
Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or
end-user, for exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate.
This is not simply clarifying the text. The existing text is explicit. This
relaxes the policy.
-> And this is also intended. The problem statement says it clearly (unless my
English is much more broken than I know):
“The current text uses a “must” together with “documented purposes”. As a
consequence, if there is a request with a documented purpose, and in the future
the assigned space is used for some other purposes, it will violate the policy.
For example, a university may document in the request, that the assigned
addressing space will be used for their own network devices and serves, but
afterwards they also sub-assign to the students in the campus (still same
infrastructure). This last purpose was not documented, so it will fall out of
the policy.”
Your proposal text mentions “As a consequence, if there is a request with a
documented purpose, and in the future the assigned space is used for some other
purposes, it will violate the policy”.
This is not an error. I’m quite certain the very restrictive wording is
deliberate. The community expected Members to use the resources for *exactly*
the demonstrated need and to return them if that demonstrated need no longer
exists. This is evident in the text at 4.1. License Renewal, which says;
“Licenses to organizations shall be renewable on the following conditions: -
The original basis of the delegation remains valid”.
-> The problem here is that this excessive restriction makes the policy
unusable. You can’t ask the members to know in advance *exactly* what is the
“complete purpose” of the resources, because organizations change and they need
to evolve their networks. I’m not removing completely the restriction, just
making it clear that the original intend was “you get resources for your own
use, not to sub-assign to other”. However, an organization that yesterday asked
resources for its network, was not having WiFi, now setups a WiFi for employees
and even visitors (using their own devices), will be violating the policy if
that was NOT DOCUMENTED in the original request. Note than in IPv4 in general,
they will use NAT (not always), but in IPv6 they are always using global
addresses. This is a problem that can be easily resolved with this proposal,
and doesn’t create additional problems, neither opens the door to using the
resources for third parties beyond your network. So still *under the original*
intend. The original intend was not “we want the RIR to make sure to know at
all the time exactly for what are you using your resources in your own
network”, but just *to make sure* that they are not used in *other networks*.
-> Note that this has already been adapted already in all the RIRs and is easy
to understand why. The IPv6 policy from all the regions was jointly created by
APNIC, ARIN and RIPE NCC communities. We have seen several changes to resolve
wording issues, clarifications, or just because we didn’t have the experience
(for example, in this case, no NAT), to visualize all the possible issues of
each specific word. From that perspective, for me it is a clarification because
it doesn’t want to change the original intend.
However, I suspect this activity already happens in practice. So I’m supportive
of the spirit of this change if the community agrees that delegation of
resources for generic ‘own infrastructure’ usage is currently acceptable.
-> I will be happy to remove that as well, but experience shows that doing many
changes at once, makes more difficult to reach consensus.
I would specifically like to caution the removal of the “may not be
sub-assigned”. This is the *definition* for ‘assigned’ space at APNIC. In the
impact assessment, the Secretariat says, “assigned address space cannot be
sub-assigned to other networks”. Who says? If this is only a technical
limitation of MyAPNIC and it is no longer stated explicitly in the policy, then
it allows for open interpretation/argument.
-> I proposed this change while speaking with Sunny yesterday about their
assessment, so it was not a “blind” change from my side. I’m happy either way,
if from the English language perspective, it is better to explicitly
“duplicate” the text, but within my knowledge, I agree with the assessment that
“exclusive” is good enough.
Is the Secretariat confident the “exclusive use within infrastructure they
operate” phrase means the same thing? Please just be careful of unintended
consequences to Section 4.0.
-> I think the section 4.0/4.1 must be read as “justified need” according to
the actual policy. Otherwise, each time we make a change (on the justification
requirements), we will be affecting it. In this concrete proposal, we aren’t,
as explained before, changed the original intent. The original intent was not
“give me an exact description of how are you using each of the IPv6 addresses
in the /48 PI that you will receive”, but instead “this is only for you within
your network, NOT for sub-assignment to other parties in other networks”.
Regards,
Adam
Please, update the version number of this proposal with this change, which I
guess it clears your impact assesment as well.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 14/2/20 14:48, "Srinivas Chendi" <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net en
nombre de su...@apnic.net> escribió:
Dear SIG members,
Here is the Secretariat impact assessment for proposal “prop-133-v001:
Clarification on Sub-Assignments” and the same is also published at:
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-133/
Staff comments
--------------
This proposal appears to be straightforward. APNIC notes the expansion
policy text to elaborate on IPv6 assignment, and it is unlikely to
change current practices for evaluating IPv6 requests.
The proposed text “and may not be sub-assigned to other networks.” is
redundant as assigned address space cannot be sub-assigned to other
networks.
Technical comments
------------------
No comments.
Legal comments
--------------
No comments.
Implementation
--------------
within 3 months.
Regards
Sunny
On 20/01/2020 10:18 am, Bertrand Cherrier wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-133-v001: Clarification on Sub-Assignments" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
(This is a new version of "prop-124" proposal abandoned after APNIC 48
as it did not reach consensus at APNIC 46, APNIC 47, and APNIC 48.)
It will be presented during the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 49 in
Melbourne, Australia on Thursday, 20 February 2020.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
express your views on the proposal:
* Do you support or oppose this proposal?
* Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell
the community about your situation.
* Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
* Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
* What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-133
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-133-v001: Clarification on Sub-Assignments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez
jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com <mailto:jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com>
1. Problem statement
Note that this proposal is ONLY relevant when end-users obtain direct
assignments from APNIC, or when a LIR obtains, also from APNIC, and
assignment
for exclusive use within its infrastructure.
Consequently, this is NOT relevant in case of LIR allocations.
The intended goal of assignments is for usage by end-users or LIRs in
their own infrastructure (servers, equipment, interconnections, employees,
guest devices, subcontractors, only within that infrastructure),
not for sub-assignment in other networks.
The current text uses a “must” together with “documented purposes”. As a
consequence, if there is a request with a documented purpose, and in the
future the assigned space is used for some other purposes, it will
violate the policy.
For example, a university may document in the request, that the assigned
addressing space will be used for their own network devices and serves, but
afterwards they also sub-assign to the students in the campus
(still same infrastructure). This last purpose was not documented, so it
will fall out of the policy.
2. Objective of policy change
Clarification of the text, by rewording it.
3. Situation in other regions
This situation, has already been corrected in AFRINIC, ARIN, LACNIC and
RIPE.
4. Proposed policy solution
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.
Proposed text:
2.2.3. Assigned address space
Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or
end-user, for exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate, and may
not be sub-assigned to other networks.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Advantages of the proposal:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making sure to match the
real situation in the market.
Disadvantages:
Disadvantages of the proposal:
None foreseen.
6. Impact on resource holders
Impact on resource holders:
None.
7. References
AFRINIC: https://www.afrinic.net/policy/2018-v6-002-d3#details
ARIN:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#2-5-allocation-assignment-reallocation-reassignment
and https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_15/
LACNIC:
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-7?language=en
RIPE NCC: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04
Cordialement,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bertrand Cherrier
Micro Logic Systems
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.theipv6company.com
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
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
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
