[sig-policy] A new version of the proposal "prop-124: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments"

  • To: "sig-policy@apnic.net" <sig-policy@apnic.net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] A new version of the proposal "prop-124: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments"
  • From: Sumon Ahmed Sabir <sasabir@gmail.com>
  • Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 23:41:43 +0600
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy@clove.apnic.net
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=G94V0+VkIdriXwd9F2+MFuyvxrRBPlQnhnUrcK/NuBI=; b=RU/YUAPELvggtm3nfFhK3vgJIRlSqtmXIIW7wU6VVhSB9HiFPnRz5O2ANBOiRTCrZn bhAq6FmJFAlWvoU89bKhWuYc9j52wd+LhpbMm8hpY/ELDUc7ilrNIl1ELdTt3B1zwPWv WftU5G3FqhGjH3BU4K4/0RuImzxylMbfQKsQBi2sAZe+C0dOQOfk9f18ClAE8mahnxeS LAZ1fylfGWJu0Wvw5j7zL/cF/yA+cHz0lIqgT8ja+jppJsauqPoepixESg0bWp56FBbs iSk2OlPKTwKLjSv+JJ1GfoeiTKuyzzYjKBC18xY5o/1I0C9cSNMWNgpnq4uXG9AvuGP/ HJfw==
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>

    • Dear SIG members

      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-v003: 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 is 
      non-permanently
      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 (devices or servers), hotspots, and point-to-point 
      links or
      VPNs.

      The provision of addressing for permanent connectivity or broadband 
      services is
      still considered a sub-assignment. Only the addressing of the 
      point-to-point
      link itself can be permanent.




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