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

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Jordi,

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

Sorry, my bad. I meant end-user. The same arguments apply.

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

Indeed, but they are still needed in operational reality. That was my point :)

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

That's totally fine, as long as you aren't managing the network you connect to. Assignment should go with who manages the network, independent of who manages the device.

> [...]
> 
> 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

Not good enough. The server I host for my business partner needs a stable address for example.

How about:

"Providing one or more separate addresses to third party devices for use on a network managed and operated by the assignment holder and temporarily provided address space to third parties shall not be considered a sub-assignment. The provision of addresses for (semi-)permanent connectivity like ISP and broadband services is still considered a sub-assignment, with the exception of point-to-point links."

Cheers,
Sander