[address-policy-wg] ipv6 assignments

Dear Nick,

Thank you for raising this question. 

On 2016-06-22 15:37:17 CET, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > 2.9. End Site
> >
> > An End Site is defined as an End User (subscriber) who has a business or legal relationship (same or associated entities) with a service provider that involves:
> >
> > -    that service provider assigning address space to the End User
> > -    that service provider providing transit service for the End User to other sites
> > -    that service provider carrying the End User's traffic
> > -    that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that contains the End User's assignment
> 
> Our reading of this is that each of these conditions is mandatory, i.e.
> logical AND, because logical OR does not make sense.  Term 2.9.2 states
> that an ipv6 End Site is only an End Site if the service provider is
> providing transit service for the End User to other sites.
> 

The RIPE NCC's current understanding is that the points in the list in section 2.9 are seen as logical OR, with the first point "assigning address space" as the mandatory one. The other requirements are considered optional. For example, it seems reasonable for an LIR to provide address space to an End User, while the End User takes care themselves for routing and traffic management.

If all points were mandatory, it would be extremely difficult for service providers to make IPv6 assignments. For example, only End Users with multiple sites would be entitled to receive an IPv6 assignment. 
This seems to be against the spirit of the IPv6 policy, which aims to allow networks to access IPv6.

If the RIPE community disagrees with this understanding or feels that the current wording of section 2.9 is ambiguous, we invite a policy proposal that provides an adjusted End Site definition.

I hope this clarifies.

Kind regards,

Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC 

Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum