Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4

  • To: SIG policy <>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop124 version 4
  • From: Satoru Tsurumaki <>
  • Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:02:07 +1100
  • Delivered-to:
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=rDbFmIKGl7bQLPYk6Jd341SPjKYRB/3g9sLsnxpBcSY=; b=HE+a/6zgOK1tmyKCH5SRjVAJCHyM6LB9qYWqvp94P63tf5GDO8ehMUmor5IvYXYeSN zb2ZmsPbdQUnf0JBtb0624KET6iWZdjM7vHKF/30xumkUPe9qdsFMl88Q64prgalQuT6 7X1p47gKLHkFMxAeQStd5nDbtHFTcxrKfSGD+Wye5Xh8LA69lL9+WcMTm4V3VGw0XAEL Oj7kWHWQ8vUpcky3CQG7zljx0t3yamktk0fquAQ32m4Abo19t4xQWDTTmmcOmk84nS7Q pOZUuvIbdEd0Yc+WaaOlIf+/u/vwfwcW2jQxsLsNxZx+vt+sqH0kO4eNmZpuziWZdIfA wbVQ==
  • In-reply-to: <>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • References: <>

    • Dear Colleagues,

      I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum.

      I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-124,

      based on a meeting we organised on 22nd Aug to discuss these proposals.

      Many supporting opinions were expressed on this proposal.

      However, also many concerning comment was expressed to explain the specific examples.

      For this matter, the same opinion was given also at JPOPM34.

        - It is better to stop specific examples because they tend to fall into discussion of adding / not applying / not applicable.

        - I think that specific examples should be stated in the guidelines rather than policies.

      Satoru Tsurumaki

      2018-09-09 18:37 GMT+11:00 Bertrand Cherrier <>:

      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:

      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-v004: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

      Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez

      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.

      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 (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

      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.

      Providing addressing space to third party devices including addresses for
      point-to-point links and/or non-permanently providing addressing space to third
      parties, for use on a network managed and operated by the assignment holder,
      shall not be considered a sub-assignment.

      The provision of addressing space for permanent or semi-permanent connectivity,
      such as broadband services, is still considered a sub-assignment.

      5. Advantages / Disadvantages

      Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making sure to match the real situation
      in the market.

      None foreseen.

      6. Impact on resource holders


      7. References

      Links to RIPE policy amended and new policy proposal submitted.


      Bertrand Cherrier
      Administration Systèmes - R&D
      Micro Logic Systems
      Tél : +687 24 99 24
      VoIP : 65 24 99 24
      SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min)

      *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
      sig-policy mailing list