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-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.

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.