Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
[sig-policy] prop-124-v001: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-124-v001: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 46 in Noumea, New Caledonia on Wednesday, 12 September 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-124 http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-124
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-124-v001: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez jordi.palet@theipv6company.com mailto:jordi.palet@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.
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-spa... 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-spa... 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.
The fact that a unique address or even a unique /64 prefix (example, RFC8273) is temporarily 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 (BYOD, devices or servers), hotspots, and point-to-point links or VPNs. The provision of non-temporary connectivity or broadband services, is still considered a sub-assignment and is therefore not allowed.
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.cherrier@micrologic.nc mailto:b.cherrier@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)
Hi all,
A short email to explain with a simple example what the actual policy avoids and what I’m trying to solve.
If you’re a university or enterprise having a Provider Independent assignment from APNIC, and then a visitor or employee or student, etc., is willing to use the WiFi, the existing policy doesn’t allow it, because that’s a sub-assignment (not being “own” infrastructure, but devices from the visitors, employees, students, etc.).
So, I’ve proposed very similar text change in all the 5 RIRs to amend that. In RIPE, we have already got consensus in a similar text (which is being improved, hopefully, with a proposal that I’ve submitted as well).
If you have any questions or inputs, please, let me know!
Regards,
Jordi
De: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net en nombre de Bertrand Cherrier b.cherrier@micrologic.nc Fecha: jueves, 29 de marzo de 2018, 5:54 Para: SIG policy sig-policy@apnic.net Asunto: [sig-policy] prop-124-v001: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-124-v001: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 46 in Noumea, New Caledonia on Wednesday, 12 September 2018.
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal? - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so, tell the community about your situation. - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal? - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Information about this proposal is available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-124
Regards
Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-124-v001: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez jordi.palet@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.
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-spa...
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-spa...
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.
The fact that a unique address or even a unique /64 prefix (example, RFC8273) is temporarily 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 (BYOD, devices or servers), hotspots, and point-to-point links or VPNs. The provision of non-temporary connectivity or broadband services, is still considered a sub-assignment and is therefore not allowed.
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.cherrier@micrologic.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 https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? 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.
Activity Summary
- 1829 days inactive
- 1829 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 2 participants
- 1 comments