Responding below, in-line.
El 17/2/20 11:54, "Adam Gosling" <firstname.lastname@example.org> escribió:
My comments are inline
This is not simply clarifying the text. The existing text is explicit. This relaxes the policy.
-> And this is also intended. The problem statement says it clearly (unless my English is much more broken than I know):
“The current text uses a “must” together with “documented purposes”. As a consequence, if there is a request with a documented purpose, and in the future the assigned space is used for some other purposes, it will violate the policy.
For example, a university may document in the request, that the assigned addressing space will be used for their own network devices and serves, but afterwards they also sub-assign to the students in the campus (still same infrastructure). This last purpose was not documented, so it will fall out of the policy.”
Your proposal text mentions “As a consequence, if there is a request with a documented purpose, and in the future the assigned space is used for some other purposes, it will violate the policy”.
This is not an error. I’m quite certain the very restrictive wording is deliberate. The community expected Members to use the resources for *exactly* the demonstrated need and to return them if that demonstrated need no longer exists. This is evident in the text at 4.1. License Renewal, which says; “Licenses to organizations shall be renewable on the following conditions: - The original basis of the delegation remains valid”.
-> The problem here is that this excessive restriction makes the policy unusable. You can’t ask the members to know in advance *exactly* what is the “complete purpose” of the resources, because organizations change and they need to evolve their networks. I’m not removing completely the restriction, just making it clear that the original intend was “you get resources for your own use, not to sub-assign to other”. However, an organization that yesterday asked resources for its network, was not having WiFi, now setups a WiFi for employees and even visitors (using their own devices), will be violating the policy if that was NOT DOCUMENTED in the original request. Note than in IPv4 in general, they will use NAT (not always), but in IPv6 they are always using global addresses. This is a problem that can be easily resolved with this proposal, and doesn’t create additional problems, neither opens the door to using the resources for third parties beyond your network. So still *under the original* intend. The original intend was not “we want the RIR to make sure to know at all the time exactly for what are you using your resources in your own network”, but just *to make sure* that they are not used in *other networks*.
-> Note that this has already been adapted already in all the RIRs and is easy to understand why. The IPv6 policy from all the regions was jointly created by APNIC, ARIN and RIPE NCC communities. We have seen several changes to resolve wording issues, clarifications, or just because we didn’t have the experience (for example, in this case, no NAT), to visualize all the possible issues of each specific word. From that perspective, for me it is a clarification because it doesn’t want to change the original intend.
However, I suspect this activity already happens in practice. So I’m supportive of the spirit of this change if the community agrees that delegation of resources for generic ‘own infrastructure’ usage is currently acceptable.
-> I will be happy to remove that as well, but experience shows that doing many changes at once, makes more difficult to reach consensus.
I would specifically like to caution the removal of the “may not be sub-assigned”. This is the *definition* for ‘assigned’ space at APNIC. In the impact assessment, the Secretariat says, “assigned address space cannot be sub-assigned to other networks”. Who says? If this is only a technical limitation of MyAPNIC and it is no longer stated explicitly in the policy, then it allows for open interpretation/argument.
-> I proposed this change while speaking with Sunny yesterday about their assessment, so it was not a “blind” change from my side. I’m happy either way, if from the English language perspective, it is better to explicitly “duplicate” the text, but within my knowledge, I agree with the assessment that “exclusive” is good enough.
Is the Secretariat confident the “exclusive use within infrastructure they operate” phrase means the same thing? Please just be careful of unintended consequences to Section 4.0.
-> I think the section 4.0/4.1 must be read as “justified need” according to the actual policy. Otherwise, each time we make a change (on the justification requirements), we will be affecting it. In this concrete proposal, we aren’t, as explained before, changed the original intent. The original intent was not “give me an exact description of how are you using each of the IPv6 addresses in the /48 PI that you will receive”, but instead “this is only for you within your network, NOT for sub-assignment to other parties in other networks”.
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
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.