Hi Kai,
Below, in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de Kai
'wusel' Siering <wusel...@uu.org>
Organización: Unseen University, Department of Magic Mails
Fecha: miércoles, 16 de mayo de 2018, 16:47
Para: <address-policy-wg@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.
