Dear colleagues
Version 4 of prop-124: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments, did not
reach consensus at the APNIC 46 Open Policy Meeting.
The Policy SIG Chairs returned the proposal to the author for further
discussion with the community and invited the author to submit an
amended version based on the community's feedback.
Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
links to previous versions are available at:
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-124/
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
Policy SIG Chairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-124-v004: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez
[email protected]
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
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
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
