[address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)

Hi,

sorry for entering the discussion after the end of the review
phase. I've subscribed to this working group mailing (on behalf of the
Tetaneutral.net LIR) list only now, upon suggestion of the RIPE
technical support after one of our IPv6 PI allocation was rejected.

My understanding of the "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment
Policy" for PI assignment so far was that a sub-allocation happens
when there are new objects created in the RIPE database, associated to
parts of the initial PI space. So having just addresses allocated to
machines run by a client of the entity for which we requested a PI
allocation would not violate the policy.

Apparently it is currently more restrictive than that. We want to
support a clarification of the current policy, but after reading the
original proposal and Ondřej Caletka's answer, I'm a bit lost.

In the case we're considering there is no need to create new objects
so the current proposal for clarification would be enough to get our
assignment request to be accepted. The IP addresses allocated (via
some DHCPv6 server, but probably through some provisioning mechanism
to keep a static allocation the addresses) by our customer will stay
completely under his control, even though the systems using them are
operated by his clients.

This kind of activity probably qualifies as hosting (or perhaps small
scale hosting).

RIPE technical support suggested us to use part of our PA space
instead of PI space for our customer, but IMHO this means that PI
space usage is really restricted for small entities.

Could someone explain what are the issues that would justify not
using PI space for this kind of hosting ?

Regards,
-- 
Matthieu Herrb