[rpd] policy proposal - Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Sander,

The point here is that this is for end-users, not LIRs ...

Note that all the examples you mention are non-temporary.

The problem of "managing" is that if I'm a university student, I'm managing my computer.

We can say that the university manages the IPv6 address sub-assigned to the computer, but if the computer has virtual machines and is using a /64, the student is the one managing the addresses of the virtual machines ...

I fully understand your points, but I fail to see a better way to fix this and I think my proposals are good enough for that, unless we find something much better.

In ARIN my proposal got simplified to something (still not fix) in the order of:

"A temporary assignment of address space provided to third parties shall not be considered a reassignment or a violation of the exclusive use criterion."

Trying to follow your idea, may be something like:

The fact that is non-permanently provided to third parties while still managed by the AfriNIC end-user, shall not be considered a sub-assignment. The provision of addressing for permanent connectivity or broadband services is still considered a sub-assignment, with the exception of point-to-point links

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
Fecha: miércoles, 15 de agosto de 2018, 5:36
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
CC: <rpd at afrinic.net>
Asunto: Re: [rpd] policy proposal - Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

    Hi,
    
    > I see two choices:
    > 
    > Option 1)
    > 
    > The fact that is non-permanently provided to third parties shall not be considered a sub-assignment. The provision of addressing for permanent connectivity or broadband services is still considered a sub-assignment, with the exception of point-to-point links.
    > 
    > Option 2)
    > 
    > The fact that a unique address or even a unique /64 prefix is non-permanently provided to third parties, shall not be considered a sub-assignment. The provision of addressing for permanent connectivity or broadband services is still considered a sub-assignment, with the exception of point-to-point links.
    > 
    > Option 1 will allow any number of address, option 2 will allow only up to /64. In both cases only for temporary usage.
    > 
    > What are your opinions?
    
    Both have a major shortcoming: Organisations that use IPv6 PI space on their network can have 3rd-party equipment connected to it:
    - Hosting a server for a friend
    - 3rd party appliances
    - Security devices (camera's etc) that are managed by an external security company
    - Same for building management systems
    - etc
    
    Of course I could consider each connection a point-to-point link and circumvent the policy that way... But this feels like we're using the wrong approach to improve this policy here. I would like a policy that aligns the policy text with the actual operation of networks:
    - If an LIR gives address space to a 3rd party so they can configure and manage their own network with it, then it is a sub-assignment
    - If an LIR gives address space to a 3rd party but the LIR is the one configuring and managing the network then it is not a sub-assignment
    
    In short: sub-assigning == delegating management and responsibility
    
    If I manage a network and connect 3rd-party devices to it, it is still my network with "my" address space. Only when I delegate address space so the 3rd party can manage it themselves should it be considered a sub-assignment.
    
    I realise that "management" and "responsibility" are not strictly defined terms (and on a different layer in the network stack), but such is reality. I'd like a policy that matches operational practice and reality, not arbitrary technical barriers.
    
    Cheers,
    Sander
    
    



**********************************************
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.