Hi Ray,
The question of the DC is much more complex. I think.
For example, is the same if the "hardware" (the real servers) are from the
assignment holder or from third parties? (hosting vs housing).
I think hosting will be ok from the perspective of both the original IPv6 PI
policy and the actual one. However, housing is at least, "in the limit" of what
was intended originally ("not to be sub-assigned to other parties ").
With the actual policy both are allowed, but housing seems to be allowed only
if dynamic ("connecting a server or appliance to an assignment holder's
network") according to the impact analysis. This doesn't make sense, because if
I'm setting up a server or appliance, it is not (in most of the cases) a
"temporary" thing.
Also, the use of dynamic, may be confusing vs "persistent" (as we used in
RIPE-690), as it may confuse regarding the usage of DHCP or something else, etc.
I think this must be allowed, even if static/persistent, because I may need a
service company coming to my network with their own devices, for example,
installing IP video-cameras for surveillance. It doesn't make sense that they
can't use my addresses, because that increase the complexity of the
infrastructure, etc., even may force to have different networks.
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: address-policy-wg <[email protected]> en nombre de Jetten
Raymond <[email protected]>
Fecha: jueves, 17 de enero de 2019, 14:03
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email protected]>
CC: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6
sub-assignment clarification
Hello All,
I have a maybe very strange opinion on this, so i'll share it with you.
I agree with Jordi that the current situation is confusing and could be
clearer...
IPv6 PI should be used as very originally was intended, and it should not
be subnetted or subdelegations should be made of it to other instances than the
obtainer at all.
Before you turn on the grill, what should be changed or made allowed or
understood as intention, compared to the very original intention of PI IPv6 is
that the temporary use as in f.ex your guest wlan, (the enduser will not get
these ip:s with him/her when leaving the building, it’s a WLAN infrastructure
that can be used as a "client" in this case even temporary).
In a DC, as long as the infra and servers are used or more precisely
accessed by clients, they also do not get the ip:s assigned, but use them to
access these platforms. In these cases the ip subnets belong to the provider,
not to the customer. (VPN is a service right?)
If a customer of a DC needs an assigned block for whatever reason, they
can obtain a normal v6 block , or if PI v6 is needed, its still available,
apply for a PI v6 subnet from Ripe. (or even become a member).
I hope this helps
Rgds,
Ray
-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
Sent: 17. tammikuuta 2019 14:13
To: address-policy-wg <[email protected]>
Subject: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6
sub-assignment clarification
Hi all,
As you know, I've been working on different versions of a clarification to
2016-04 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04).
This proposal allows a single IP to be sub-assigned, and the author
explained (not just in the policy proposal text, but also in the justification
and in different emails), that the case they have is to make sure that the
policy allows it for:
1) Datacenter services.
2) Interconnections (VPN, PNI, p2p, etc.).
3) Guess visitors (employees, hotspot users, etc.).
The policy text doesn't mention those examples, but the summary talks about
them:
"Intended use cases for IPv6 PI space in the spirit of this policy proposal
are the use in (public) WIFI networks (like the WIFI at RIPE meetings), as
transfer networks on PNIs or other PTP-links/VPNs to users or customers, or for
housing/hosting for servers in data centres. The use of IPv6 PI space for
DSL/cable/FFTH/etc. subscribers is explicitly not an intended use case for this
policy proposal."
On the other side, the impact analysis indicates:
"It is the RIPE NCCs understanding that assignments as described above are
dynamic in nature, either by varying the prefix or interface identifier (IID)
over time. Any permanent and static assignments of a prefix would still be
considered a sub-assignment as per clause 2.6, “Assign” of the IPv6 address
allocation and assignment policy. Consequently the RIPE NCC will not provide
IPv6 PI assignments for such deployment plans."
I don't think this is very clear, because
1) DC addresses usually are static.
2) Interconnections usually are static (p2p links at least).
On the other side, as explained in my previous versions, I think that it is
a valid case (in a hotspot, DC, etc.), instead of providing a single address,
provide a full prefix (for example /64), so the host can have Virtual Machines
running on different addresses of the same prefix.
So, in my understanding we really need to clarify this text and for that,
we need to decide what we want to be allowed and what not.
So my questions are:
1) Do we agree that only dynamic should be allowed, or static is also ok?
2) According to 1 above, should the DataCenter case be alllowed?
Thanks!
Regards,
Jordi
**********************************************
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.
**********************************************
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.
