Orbit

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.

Orbit

1. Problem Statement

2. Objective of policy change

3. Situation in other regions

4. Proposed policy solution

5. Advantages / Disadvantages

6. Impact on resource holders

7. References