[address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Wed Oct 5 15:40:41 CEST 2005
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> To: "Jørgen Hovland" <jorgen at hovland.cx> Cc: "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net>; <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:28:15PM +0200, Jørgen Hovland wrote: >> >>product specifications. >> >>Can I allocate 10 IPv6 addresses to a customer from our own pool, or >> >>does >> >>the customer need its own record in the DB ? If so, _must_ this >> >>allocation >> >>be a /64 even though the customer will only use 10 addresses? >> >> >> >>[ ] Yes. >> >>[ ] No. >> >>[ ] Don't know. >> >> I apologise if this is moot, but an answer would really be appreciated. > > The answer is "the RIPE policies have no answers how to do things that > are in violation of the RIPE policies" - and assigning 10 IPv6 addresses > is against the policy. > >> Or am I totally wrong? How can I give 10, and only 10, addresses to a >> private customer without allocating the customer its own /64 ? > > What you can do, if you insist, is to allocate a /64, and block all but > 10 addresses out of the block - this would follow the policies to the > letter, if not the spirit. > > As for documentating the resulting /64: this is a very interesting issue, > and this is an open debate "how much personal data must/can/must not > be stored in the RIPE database". > > The policy (RPE-267) says: > > ------------ quote --------------- > 3.3. Registration > > Internet address space must be registered in a registry database > accessible to appropriate members of the Internet community. This > is necessary to ensure the uniqueness of each Internet address and > to provide reference information for Internet troubleshooting at > all levels, ranging from all RIRs and IRs to End Users. > > The goal of registration should be applied within the context of > reasonable privacy considerations and applicable laws. > > (more in 5.5) > ------------ quote --------------- > > This can be interpreted as "you register it in an internal database, > and if someone from the RIPE hostmaster is asking for allocation > details, you provide all relevant data to the RIPE NCC" - and it is > frequently done that way in IPv4 already. > > The RIPE database would then carry an umbrella object, stating what > you do with the space ("this space is used for /64 assignments to > end users") and whom to contact in case of questions or problems > ("abuse at ...", etc.). > > The policy is a bit vague here, admitted. > > Most important is that people "out there" know what the address space > is used for, and that you can show documentation to the RIPE NCC in case > they come asking. This is very useful information. I now know that I have to assign (thanks for the correction) a minimum of /64 to every single customer if they need two or more addresses, and that I can hide their personal data (private users) in the public database when doing so. Thank you, Joergen Hovland
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]