Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Dear SIG members,
We wish you all the best for this new year !
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
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-v005: 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 IPv4, typically, this is not a problem because the usage of NAT.
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 hotspots (when is not an ISP, for example, associations or community networks), 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”.
This proposal clarifies this situation in this regard and better define the concept, particularly considering new uses of IPv6 (RFC8273), by means of new text.
It also clarifies that the usage of sub-assignments in ISPs, data centers and similar cases is not allowed.
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 (already reached consensus), LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution ---------------------------
Add a new paragraph after the existing one in 2.2.3.
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 exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate, as well as for interconnection purposes.
The address space assignment is only for use by the original holder of said assignment, as well as for third party devices, as long as they are operating within the original holder infrastructure.
Sub-assignments are not allowed outside that infrastructure (for example using sub-assignments for ISP customers), neither for providing addressing space to third parties in data-centers (or similar cases).
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.
Hello,
To add some additional background data to this proposal, I’ll point out that ARIN recently adopted a proposal to solve the same problem statement. The language incorporated into the ARIN NRPM can be found here: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2018_4.html https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2018_4.html
Thanks,
-Chris
On Jan 9, 2019, at 8:28 PM, Bertrand Cherrier b.cherrier@micrologic.nc wrote:
Dear SIG members,
We wish you all the best for this new year !
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-v005: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez jordi.palet@theipv6company.com mailto:jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
- 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 IPv4, typically, this is not a problem because the usage of NAT.
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 hotspots (when is not an ISP, for example, associations or community networks), 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).
- Objective of policy change
Section 2.2.3. (Definitions/Assigned Address Space), explicitly prohibits such assignments, stating that “Assigned ... may not be sub-assigned”.
This proposal clarifies this situation in this regard and better define the concept, particularly considering new uses of IPv6 (RFC8273), by means of new text.
It also clarifies that the usage of sub-assignments in ISPs, data centers and similar cases is not allowed.
- 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 (already reached consensus), LACNIC and ARIN.
- Proposed policy solution
Add a new paragraph after the existing one in 2.2.3.
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 exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate, as well as for interconnection purposes.
The address space assignment is only for use by the original holder of said assignment, as well as for third party devices, as long as they are operating within the original holder infrastructure.
Sub-assignments are not allowed outside that infrastructure (for example using sub-assignments for ISP customers), neither for providing addressing space to third parties in data-centers (or similar cases).
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making sure to match the real situation in the market.
Disadvantages: None foreseen.
- Impact on resource holders
None.
- References
Links to RIPE policy amended and new policy proposal submitted.
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
Activity Summary
- 1728 days inactive
- 1728 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 2 participants
- 1 comments