Hi all,
I support this proposal.
Adam
On 2021-02-07 23:15, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-133: Clarification on
Sub-Assignments"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented during the Open Policy Meeting at
APRICOT2021/APNIC 51
online-only conference on Wednesday, 03 February 2021.
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 conference 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:
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-133
Regards,
Bertrand and Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-------------------------------------------------------
prop-133-v003: Clarification on Sub-Assignments
-------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martnez
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 (from APNIC as well), an
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, clearly 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.
The cause of the problem is easy to understand. When we used to have
only IPv4, in most cases this was not happening, because typically the
IPv4 addressed sub-assigned to the students was private addresses, so
not falling in the scope of the policy. However, in the case of IPv6,
the addresses sub-assigned will be GUA, so violating the policy.
2. Objective of policy change
------------------------------
Clarification of the text, by rewording and simplifying it and avoiding
an unintended policy violation when deploying IPv6.
3. Situation in other regions
------------------------------
This situation, has already been corrected in AFRINIC, ARIN, LACNIC and
RIPE. In some cases, the reworded text corrected/clarified also other
issues which do not happen in APNIC.
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 means address space delegated to an LIR, or
end-user, for exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
------------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making sure to match the
real situation with IPv4 and IPv6 networks.
The proposal resolves the problem, now and in the future, for
unintended
violations that happen mainly because the incorporation of IPv6 in the
networks, with a text that was written thinking mostly in IPv4 only.
Disadvantages:
The proposal is NOT creating any trouble/change to networks that do not
violate the actual policy.
6. 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
* 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
