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?
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”.
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.
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.