Orbit

In my opinion this is much simpler, and in fact, in other RIRs I’ve succeeded to change the policy to resolve it.

The problem is that using delegation is confusing, across the text, even if it is well defined in 2.2.1. Delegation is a “short” for allocation or assignment. We should make sure that all the text only uses delegation when referring to “both” of them. For example 1.1.

Category: Definitions Actual text:Proposed text: 1.1. Scope 1.1. Scope · The allocation and assignment of Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) address space.· The delegation of Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) address space.

Explanation: Delegation already includes allocation and assignment, so it can be shortened to coincide with the IPv4 text (“The delegation of Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) address space”).

Also, the problem is confusion among delegation and distribution. Is the same, so maybe we want to say that in 2.2.1

Then 2.2.2., of course, any IR that receives an allocation, can also *use* for its own infrastructure, no sense on the other way around. It will be silly that an operator get space and can’t use it for its own infrastructure!

So, I think that to keep consistency with 2.2.3 (which has been reviewed by a recent policy), 2.2.2 should be:

“Allocated address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, for assignment to customers, as well their own network infrastructure”.

Explanation: Allocation is one type of delegation, as defined in 2.2.1 Allocations meaning has been always “you’re an ISP, you get addresses for you network and your customers” If we build a “tree” the subsequent step after an allocation is assignment (as per 2.2.3). Using “subsequent distribution” or “sub-allocation” or “sub-assignment” or “sub-delegation” is wrong and confusing. Adding more “terms” that have not been defined is useless and confusing.

I think, again, all this work needs a complete review of the policy manual. It is useless and confusing to keep using “distribution” and “delegation” across the text, while they mean the same. Either we explicitly state in 2.2.1 that both are the same, or we stick to one of them in all the text.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 2/7/21 7:25, "Amrita Choudhury" amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in escribió:

@Adam forwarding your mail to the group. It was sent only to me by mistake

From: Adam Gosling adamgosling@gmail.com Sent: 02 July 2021 09:46 To: Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in Subject: Re: [wg-pdr] Discussion on Concern 2

Hi all,

Wouldn’t many operators have already done this already? I could be wrong. Can anybody confirm that?

Can we put forward a simple proposal to find out what the community thinks? They could form a simple consensus that it IS/IS NOT allowed.

It is the principal that counts. The exact text changes can be reviewed during the drafting stage.

A proposal like this below.

Adam

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assigning address space to internal infrastructure

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Problem statement

--------------------

Seeking clarification on policy interpretation.

2. Objective of policy change

-----------------------------

Resolve Operation Concern #2

• Address space – Section 2.2

3. Situation in other regions

-----------------------------

TBC

4. Proposed policy solution

---------------------------

Option A

Allocated address space can be used for sub-delegating to customers, as

well as be assigned in their own network infrastructure.

Option B

Allocated address space can not be used for sub-delegating to customers,

as well as be assigned in their own network infrastructure.

5. Advantages / Disadvantages

-----------------------------

Advantages

- The policy for use of address space will be clarified.

Disadvantages

- None identified

6. Impact on APNIC

------------------

Readers of the policy document will have a better understanding of

what documents the Secretariat will request during the application

process.

References

----------

APNIC Policy Document Review Report

https://conference.apnic.net/51/assets/files/APSr481/apnic-policy-

document- review-report.pdf

On 22 Jun 2021, at 12:56 pm, Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in wrote:

Thanks Anupam for your opinion. Does anyone have anything to discuss on Concern 2 and comment on Anupam’s opinion?

P.S. I have changed the subject of the email for ease of following

Regards

Amrita

From: Anupam Agrawal anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com Sent: 17 June 2021 19:43 To: Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in; wg-pdr@apnic.net Cc: Bertrand Cherrier b.cherrier@micrologic.nc Subject: Re: [wg-pdr] OPM is approaching

To look into this issue, refuge was taken in RFC 7020 - “The Internet Numbers Registry System” to understand LIRs and their roles. The RFC states in Section 3 opening paragraph that “LIRs in turn serve their respective number resource consumers (which may be themselves, their customers, "sub-LIRs", etc.)”. Going by this, assignment from allocated resources is absolutely possible and the same is what is reflected in 2.1.3.

Going further, The RFC states In Section 3 under the paragraph heading “Local IRs”, that “LIRs perform IP address allocation services for their customers, typically ISPs, end users, or child LIRs (also known as "sub-LIRs”)”. Herein, also the role covers the intent of allocation and assignment as expressed in 2.2.2 & 2.2.3 as it covers both end users and sub LIRs and the case in point is that LIRs are end users themselves at times.

So in my opinion, it is okay for the LIRs to assign resources to themselves from the allocations and definitions in 2.2.2 & 2.2.3 is merely describing an act and possibly should not be construed as a limiting condition for 2.1.3.

--

________________________________________________________ Anupam Agrawal | India Internet Foundation - Chair | 91 990 399 2838

On 17-Jun-2021, at 6:55 AM, Amrita Choudhury amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in wrote:

Dear Bertrand: Thank you for providing the clarity on the remit of this group and the need to speed up the discussions if we want to produce some meaningful outcome before next meeting.

Dear Fellow working group members,

An update first. Simon Baroi has agreed to be a Co- Chair of this WG ????

Now to get back to what is ahead of us, lets refer back to the Secretariat Report (https://2021.apricot.net/assets/files/APSr481/apnic-policy-document-review-r... ) and look at the operational concerns. I have been told that there is some development expected in the Operational Concern 1 (slide 12) so we need not look into that, at the moment.

Lets begin with Slide 13 Operational Concern 2

“Address space –

Section 2.2 – There is confusion about whether Allocated address space can be used for subdelegating to customers, as well as be assigned in their own network infrastructure.

• The only direct indication in the policy that LIRs may assign space to themselves for their own infrastructure is in the definition of an LIR at 2.1.3.

• This is somewhat contradicted by the definition of Delegated address space at 2.2.1. which implies that Assignments are for an organization’s own infrastructure and Allocations are for subsequent delegation to customers.”

Any comments or inputs on this one?

Regards

Amrita

From: Bertrand Cherrier b.cherrier@micrologic.nc Sent: 15 June 2021 11:27 To: wg-pdr@apnic.net Subject: [wg-pdr] OPM is approaching

Hello everyone,

I'm glad to see you all working together to achieve the same goal.

This working group has to come up with a proposal for the OPM at APNIC 52

The call for proposal will be open on July 5th with the deadline on August 6th, so it leaves about 8 weeks

To gain in clarity, it's better to have multiple proposals than only one with all the modifications in it.

To resolve the identified issues, the proposals have to address the observations and operational concerns.

You have to focus on the document and avoid talks that are out of scope, but keep track of this other things, they will lead to new props :-)

A quick clarification, it's not Sunny's report, it's the Secretariat's report.

Keep the good work going !

Regards, ______________________________ Bertrand Cherrier

Administration systèmes, R&D

-- Micro Logic Systems b.cherrier@micrologic.nc https://www.mls.nc

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

_______________________________________________ [wg-pdr] Policy Document Review Working Group mailing list -- wg-pdr@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to wg-pdr-leave@apnic.net

********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com 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.