[address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification

Hello Jordi and all,

Allow me to provide some clarification.

While 2016-04 was indeed focused primarily on IPv6 PI assignments, the 
adjusted definition in section 2.6 applies to all assignments.

The RIPE NCC Impact Analysis says:
-------------
This definition of sub-assignments will apply for assignments within 
IPv6 allocations and for IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignments.
While LIRs have to consider this definition when providing assignments, 
the RIPE NCC will apply this understanding during the evaluation of IPv6 
PI requests and when reviewing assignments within allocations during a 
potential audit of an LIR.
------------
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04

Kind regards,
Marco Schmidt
Policy Officer
RIPE NCC


On 17/01/2019 20:34, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
>
> Hi Kai,
>
> You’re missing that 2016-04 is for the clarification of IPv6 PI, not PA.
>
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> *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: *jueves, 17 de enero de 2019, 20:16
> *Para: *<address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> *Asunto: *Re: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 
> sub-assignment clarification
>
> On 17.01.2019 15:37, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
>
>     We need to consider as well, as I depicted already before, that if you have a physical sever, you probably need also multiple addresses for that server, that's why, I think the policy should allow that (this is clearly now allowed now).
>
>
> Let's consult ripe-707:
>
>
>           2.6. Assign
>
>     To “assign” means to delegate address space to an ISP or End User
>     for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate.
>     Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented by
>     specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other
>     parties.
>
>     Providing another entity with separate addresses (not prefixes)
>     from a subnet used on a link operated by the assignment holder is
>     not considered a sub-assignment. This includes for example letting
>     visitors connect to the assignment holder's network, connecting a
>     server or appliance to an assignment holder's network and setting
>     up point-to-point links with 3rd parties.
>
>
>           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
>
>
> By these definitions, only an IR ("2.1. Internet Registry (IR)")  can 
> "assign" allocated address space to non-IRs, i. e. ISPs or End Users, 
> in the context of ripe-707.
> The term "ISP" is not wll defined within ripe-707 except for "LIRs are 
> generally ISPs whose customers are primarily End Users and possibly 
> other ISPs" in "2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR)". The graph in "2. 
> Definitions" suggests that ISPs are the entities that are actually 
> creating the Internet, whereas (L)IRs are involved in distributing IP 
> space only. Since, following 2.6., only an (I)SP _that also is an 
> (L)IR_ could, acting in it's (L)IR role, "assign" address space, 2.9. 
> should therefore receive a friendly "s/service provider/ISP/g" and 
> have the first bullet point removed.
>
> On the other hand, 2.6. in it's current form – except for the 
> "separate addresses (not prefixes)" issue, as any singke address IS 
> technically also a /128 prefix – seems rather clear to me: if it's for 
> the documented "specific use within the Internet infrastructure they 
> operate", it's fine. Otherwise, a separate assignment is needed for 
> either a new specific use _or a different End User_, so the ISP or End 
> User (or the ISP for it's End User) will have to request that from an 
> (L)IR (which it may be itself, if the ISP or End User is an LIR as well).
>
> Thus, if you need "multiple addresses" for your "physical server" and 
> you received an assignment for your infrastructure including your 
> server(s), I cannot see a conflict with ripe-707. If you want to add a 
> dedicated server for a customer of yours, I'd expect you to get a new 
> (non-PI) prefix (i. e. no less than a /64 as per 5.4.1.) for this 
> different End User from your LIR of choice (or have that End User 
> apply for a /48 PIv6 via your cooperative LIR).
>
> Regards,
> -kai
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> 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.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190118/dc092c63/attachment.html>