[address-policy-wg] 2018-02 Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting

Hi Kai,

Below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Kai 'wusel' Siering <wusel+ml at uu.org>
Organización: Unseen University, Department of Magic Mails
Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 16:47
Para: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2018-02 Assignment Clarification in IPv6 Policy - comments from today meeting

    On 16.05.2018 14:19, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
    > Hi all,
    >
    > I've been asked to state what is the problem.
    >
    > I think it was clear in my slides, but anyway, here we go with all the problems I see:
    >
    > 1) The current policy text says "Providing another entity with separate addresses (not prefixes)".
    >  To me this is inconsistent addresses instead of an address vs not-prefixes.
    
    I think I mentioned this on 2016-04 already; any single address is always a prefix as well, /128 in v6.

So, to make sure I understood your point. You think that a single /128 prefix is ok to be sub-assigned (as per the current policy), but a single /64 prefix is not?
Or you will agree in a change that only fix that?
    
    But your slide 3 shows nicely why I strictly oppose more meddling with this paragraph. We went from 42 words in »2.6 Assign« to 98 in the current policy text, which your proposal would boost to a staggering 134 words.
    And that's without the necessary – but yet missing – definitions of »non-permanently« or what happens on links that are not »operated« by the assigment holder (i. e. a link a peer operates cannot use numbers from my assignment?). Not to mention the loophole that narrow band services are explicitely are allowed now — given 100 GBit/sec links are common these days, 10 to 100 MBit/sec is definitely narrow band today, right?

Regarding the specific wording, you're totally right and we should decide *if* there is a way to re-formulate it.
    
    
    But there is a point everyone seems to happily ignore: The text discussed last time, as well as this time, changes the basic definition of what an assignment is and "to assign" means. As such, that definition applies everywhere where the policy document talks about assignments.
    Like e. g. in »5.4.3. Assignment to operator's infrastructure«: »An organisation (i.e. ISP/LIR) may assign a network prefix per PoP as the service infrastructure of an IPv6 service operator. Each assignment to a PoP is regarded as one assignment regardless of the number of users using the PoP. A separate assignment can be obtained for the in-house operations of the operator.«

That's the reason I initially suggested, even when discussing 2016-04, that the text should be only in the IPv6 PI section ... the consensus was in the other direction.
    
    The more text we put into 2.6, the more difficult it will become to not violate the policy, for End Users, ISPs and even for LIRs. Any change to "2.6 Assign" applies to PA and PI space alike.
    
    > 3) If we allow sub-assignments, what is then the difference in between IPv6 PA and PI ?
    
    You are barking at the wrong tree. "2.6 Assign" applies to PI and PA and disencourages sub-assignments (of any assigned space) "to other parties" anyway.
    
    > So, I think it is clear we have not just one problem?
    
    I do not see a real problem with the text of ripe-699 – unless I start nit-picking and take the policy apart, word by word. If one *wants*, the *intention* of the policy can be understood. If one does not want to understand the intention, more words will simply make things worse, not better.

This is the big problem in my opinion, and I actually forgot the mention it before. I think policy must be as much as possible, a text which has only one interpretation, even if that means it is longer. Otherwise, and I explained this in emails when discussing 2016-04, people that "follows" the policy process has advantage in terms of interpretation vs a newcomer that will read only the *policy text*, but not the impact analysis, and all the discussions used to clarify the policy text.



    
    Regards,
    -kai
    
    
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
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.