Aside from the question of examples or not examples, I offer the following suggestion… The wording is quite awkward and difficult to parse. So much so, I am not 100% certain of the intent.
I offer the following suggestion for a rewrite hoping that I have captured the intent accurately: ======= Providing IP number resources to third party devices, including addresses for point-to-point links or addresses provided on an impermanent basis, for use on a network managed and operated by the assignment holder shall not be considered a sub-assignment. Providing IP number resources for permanent or semi-permanent connectivity, such as broadband services is still considered a sub-assignment. ======= Owen > On Sep 10, 2018, at 20:55 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> > wrote: > > Hi Satoru, > > Thanks for commenting on this. > > The current proposal text has not examples, I think it is quite neutral in > this aspect: > > Providing addressing space to third party devices including addresses for > point-to-point links and/or non-permanently providing addressing space to > third > parties, for use on a network managed and operated by the assignment holder, > shall not be considered a sub-assignment. > > The provision of addressing space for permanent or semi-permanent > connectivity, > such as broadband services, is still considered a sub-assignment. > > I think having the examples in the “objective” of the policy proposal is > needed to clarify the reason for it. You don’t think so? > > Regards, > Jordi > > > > > > De: <sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net> en nombre de Satoru Tsurumaki > <satoru.tsurum...@g.softbank.co.jp> > Fecha: martes, 11 de septiembre de 2018, 14:02 > Para: SIG policy <sig-pol...@apnic.net> > Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4 > > Dear Colleagues, > > I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum. > > I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-124, > based on a meeting we organised on 22nd Aug to discuss these proposals. > > Many supporting opinions were expressed on this proposal. > However, also many concerning comment was expressed to explain the specific > examples. > For this matter, the same opinion was given also at JPOPM34. > > - It is better to stop specific examples because they tend to fall into > discussion of adding / not applying / not applicable. > - I think that specific examples should be stated in the guidelines rather > than policies. > > Regards, > Satoru Tsurumaki > > > 2018-09-09 18:37 GMT+11:00 Bertrand Cherrier <b.cherr...@micrologic.nc > <mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc>>: >> Dear SIG members >> >> A new version of the proposal "prop-124: Clarification on IPv6 >> Sub-Assignments" >> has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. >> >> Information about earlier versions is available from: >> >> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-124 >> <https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-124> >> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: >> >> · Do you support or oppose the proposal? >> · Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? >> · What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? >> Please find the text of the proposal below. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> prop-124-v004: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments >> >> Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez >> jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com <mailto:jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com> >> 1. 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. >> >> One more case is when an end-user contracts a third-party to do some services >> in their own network and they need to deploy their own devices, even servers, >> network equipment, etc. For example, security surveillance services may >> require >> that the contractor provides their own cameras, recording system, even their >> own firewall and/or router for a dedicated VPN, etc. Of course, in many >> cases, >> this surveillance system may need to use the addressing space of the >> end-user. >> >> 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). >> >> 2. Objective of policy change >> >> Section 2.2.3. (Definitions/Assigned Address Space), explicitly prohibits >> such assignments, stating that “Assigned ... may not be sub-assigned”. >> >> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#2.2.3.-Assigned-address-space >> >> <https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#2.2.3.-Assigned-address-space> >> This proposal clarifies this situation in this regard and better define the >> concept, particularly considering new uses of IPv6 (RFC 8273), by means of >> a new paragraph. >> >> 3. 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 APNIC. Same text has also been submitted >> to AfriNIC, LACNIC and ARIN. >> >> 4. Proposed policy solution >> >> Add a new paragraph after the existing one in 2.2.3 >> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#2.2.3.-Assigned-address-space >> >> <https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#2.2.3.-Assigned-address-space> >> Actual text: >> 2.2.3. Assigned address space >> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or >> end-user, >> for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate. >> Assignments must >> only be made for specific, documented purposes and may not be sub-assigned. >> >> New text: >> 2.2.3. Assigned address space >> Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or >> end-user, >> for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate. >> Assignments must >> only be made for specific, documented purposes and may not be sub-assigned. >> >> Providing addressing space to third party devices including addresses for >> point-to-point links and/or non-permanently providing addressing space to >> third >> parties, for use on a network managed and operated by the assignment holder, >> shall not be considered a sub-assignment. >> >> The provision of addressing space for permanent or semi-permanent >> connectivity, >> such as broadband services, is still considered a sub-assignment. >> >> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >> >> Advantages: >> Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making sure to match the real >> situation >> in the market. >> >> Disadvantages: >> None foreseen. >> >> 6. Impact on resource holders >> >> None >> >> 7. References >> >> Links to RIPE policy amended and new policy proposal submitted. >> >> Cordialement, >> >> Bertrand Cherrier >> Administration Systèmes - R&D >> Micro Logic Systems >> b.cherr...@micrologic.nc <mailto:b.cherr...@micrologic.nc> >> https://www.mls.nc <https://www.mls.nc/> >> Tél : +687 24 99 24 >> VoIP : 65 24 99 24 >> SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min) >> >> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> >> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy> > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * > _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.consulintel.es <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. > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
