Hi Jordi, you're mixing things up. This is not about 2016-04, which was approved long time ago. This is about ripe-707 [1], titled "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" — the current policy in question you want to be modified.
Regards, -kai [1] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-707#assign Am 17.01.2019 um 20:34 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ: > > 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 <[email protected]> en nombre de Kai > 'wusel' Siering <[email protected]> > *Organización: *Unseen University, Department of Magic Mails > *Fecha: *jueves, 17 de enero de 2019, 20:16 > *Para: *<[email protected]> > *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. >
