Maybe a better way to approach this question would be, are the use cases at issue here (guest wifi hotspots, etc) a business activity that one would consider a primary line of business for the organization?
I’m wondering if a better way to approach this would be to ask the question as to whether or not the assignment of resources to third-party end users is an action that’s considered a product that the organization/company provides, or an ancillary service. In most cases, wifi hotspots clearly are ancillary, and as such, I would not see any issue with considering those allocations direct assignments. If wifi connectivity is a substantial revenue-generating service for the organization, however, then I agree that an allocation is a better fit. -C > On May 8, 2018, at 9:40 AM, Austin Murkland <[email protected]> > wrote: > > +1 > > On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 9:40 PM Andrew Dul <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I'd like to suggest that the proposed policy text be shorted and clarified. > I don't believe all the examples are necessary in the definition section. > > Add to the end of NRPM Section 2.5 - > https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#two5 > <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#two5> > > Current draft text: > > The fact that a unique address or even a unique /64 prefix is non-permanently > provided to third parties, on a link operated by the original receiver of the > assignment, shall not be considered a sub-assignment. This includes, for > example, guests or employees (devices or servers), hotspots, and > point-to-point links or VPNs. The provision of addressing for permanent > connectivity or broadband services is still considered a sub-assignment. Only > the addressing of the point-to-point link itself can be permanent and that > addressing can't be used (neither directly or indirectly) for the actual > communication. > > My suggested rewrite: > > A unique address or a unique /64 prefix that is non-permanently provided to > third parties, shall not be considered an assignment. > > > > On 4/24/2018 11:57 AM, David Farmer wrote: >> I note that the text in question is the subject of an editorial change that >> the AC has recently forwarded to Board for review, at a minimum the policy >> text need to be updated to account for this editorial change. Further, I do >> not support the text as written. >> >> I support a change to section 2 that is not quite so IPv6 specific and >> focused more on the idea that providing hotspot, guest access, or other such >> temporary access does not necessitate the making of re-assignments from a >> policy perspective. Furthermore, such uses are not in conflict with the >> conditions of an assignment (made by ARIN) or re-assignment (made by an ISP >> or LIR). Also, If the details of RFC8273 need to be mentioned at all, they >> should be someplace in section 6, not in section 2, the definitions of >> assign, allocate, re-assign and re-allocate should remain agnostic about IP >> version. >> >> Thanks. >> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 2:22 PM, ARIN <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> On 18 April 2018 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-254: >> Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments" as a Draft Policy. >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2018-4 is below and can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2018_4.html >> <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2018_4.html> >> >> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will >> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft >> policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated >> in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are: >> >> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration >> * Technically Sound >> * Supported by the Community >> >> The PDP can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html> >> >> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html >> <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html> >> >> Regards, >> >> Sean Hopkins >> Policy Analyst >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >> >> >> >> Draft Policy ARIN-2018-4: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments >> >> Problem Statement: >> >> When the policy was drafted, the concept of assignments/sub-assignments did >> not consider a practice very common in IPv4 which is replicated and even >> amplified in IPv6: the use of IP addresses for point-to-point links or VPNs. >> >> In the case of IPv6, instead of unique addresses, the use of unique prefixes >> (/64) is increasingly common. >> >> Likewise, the policy failed to consider the use of IP addresses in hotspots, >> or the use of IP addresses by guests or employees in Bring Your Own Device >> (BYOD) and many other similar cases. >> >> Finally, the IETF has recently approved the use of a unique /64 prefix per >> interface/host (RFC8273) instead of a unique address. This, for example, >> allows users to connect to a hotspot, receive a /64 such that they are >> “isolated” from other users (for reasons of security, regulatory >> requirements, etc.) and they can also use multiple virtual machines on their >> devices with a unique address for each one (within the same /64). >> >> Section 2.5 (Definitions/Allocate and Assign), explicitly prohibits such >> assignments, stating that “Assignments... are not to be sub-assigned to >> other parties”. >> >> This proposal clarifies this situation in this regard and better define the >> concept, particularly considering new uses of IPv6 (RFC8273), by means of a >> new paragraph. >> >> 5. Policy Statement >> >> Actual Text >> >> • 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 >> organizations and are not to be sub-assigned to other parties. >> >> New Text >> >> • 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 >> organizations and are not to be sub-assigned to other parties. >> >> The fact that a unique address or even a unique /64 prefix is >> non-permanently provided to third parties, on a link operated by the >> original receiver of the assignment, shall not be considered a >> sub-assignment. This includes, for example, guests or employees (devices or >> servers), hotspots, and point-to-point links or VPNs. The provision of >> addressing for permanent connectivity or broadband services is still >> considered a sub-assignment. Only the addressing of the point-to-point link >> itself can be permanent and that addressing can't be used (neither directly >> or indirectly) for the actual communication. >> >> >> >> 6. Comments >> >> a. Timetable for implementation: >> >> Immediate >> >> b. Anything else: >> >> Situation in other regions: This situation, has already been corrected in >> RIPE, and the policy was updated in a similar way, even if right now there >> is a small discrepancy between the policy text that reached consensus and >> the RIPE NCC Impact Analysis. A new policy proposal has been submitted to >> amend that, and the text is the same as presented by this proposal at ARIN. >> Same text has also been submitted to AfriNIC, LACNIC and APNIC. >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> >> Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any >> issues. >> >> >> >> -- >> =============================================== >> David Farmer Email:[email protected] >> <mailto:email%[email protected]> >> Networking & Telecommunication Services >> Office of Information Technology >> University of Minnesota >> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 >> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 >> =============================================== >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> >> Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any >> issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any > issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
