[sig-policy] prop-133-v003: Clarification on Sub-Assignments

  • To: "sig-policy" <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-133-v003: Clarification on Sub-Assignments
  • From: "chku" <chku@twnic.tw>
  • Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 13:15:17 +0800 (CST)
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy@clove.apnic.net
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=twnic.tw; s=tw168; t=1612761320; bh=xpc7W2qOEbk0dFUzJpIgW/oQsldEz1JqdPWCpyXb/q4=; l=6150; h=From:Subject:Message-ID:To:Date:MIME-Version; b=MsZHE6d8zlz+UzRxLVqboc1qcnAlj9/yEEnWMtPMc6FzKP7shbO0KbI/kYJ+zjBg3 0dPuFgLizaJlvFKzUMtFlB/qoRGX2ORXllSPUkxFL5XclhK2l7bu+xEVmVzbxCoTbX /FlFRZeZ4mTyr1lHoIQZoq3wUZZaqLFu3TPiTodI=
  • 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>
  • Reply-to: chku <chku@twnic.tw>

    • Dear SIG members,
      
      A new version of the proposal "prop-133: Clarification on Sub-Assignments"
      has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
      
      It will be presented during the Open Policy Meeting at APRICOT2021/APNIC 51
      online-only conference on Wednesday, 03 February 2021.
      
      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 conference 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:
      https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-133
      
      Regards,
      Bertrand and Ching-Heng
      APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
      
      
      -------------------------------------------------------
      
      prop-133-v003: Clarification on Sub-Assignments
      
      -------------------------------------------------------
      
      Proposer: Jordi Palet Martnez
                      jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
      
      
      1. Problem statement
      ---------------------
      Note that this proposal is ONLY relevant when end-users obtain direct 
      assignments from APNIC, or when a LIR obtains (from APNIC as well), an 
      assignment for exclusive use within its infrastructure. Consequently, 
      this is NOT relevant in case of LIR allocations.
      
      The intended goal of assignments is for usage by end-users or LIRs in 
      their own infrastructure (servers, equipment, interconnections, 
      employees, guest devices, subcontractors, clearly only within that 
      infrastructure), not for
      sub-assignment in other networks.
      
      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.
      
      The cause of the problem is easy to understand. When we used to have 
      only IPv4, in most cases this was not happening, because typically the 
      IPv4 addressed sub-assigned to the students was private addresses, so 
      not falling in the scope of the policy. However, in the case of IPv6, 
      the addresses sub-assigned will be GUA, so violating the policy.
      
      
      2. Objective of policy change
      ------------------------------
      Clarification of the text, by rewording and simplifying it and avoiding 
      an unintended policy violation when deploying IPv6.
      
      
      3. Situation in other regions
      ------------------------------
      This situation, has already been corrected in AFRINIC, ARIN, LACNIC and 
      RIPE. In some cases, the reworded text corrected/clarified also other 
      issues which do not happen in APNIC.
      
      
      4. Proposed policy solution
      ----------------------------
      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.
      
      Proposed text:
      2.2.3. Assigned address space
      Assigned address space means address space delegated to an LIR, or 
      end-user, for exclusive use within the infrastructure they operate.
      
      
      5. Advantages / Disadvantages
      ------------------------------
      Advantages:
      Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making sure to match the 
      real situation with IPv4 and IPv6 networks.
      
      The proposal resolves the problem, now and in the future, for unintended 
      violations that happen mainly because the incorporation of IPv6 in the 
      networks, with a text that was written thinking mostly in IPv4 only.
      
      
      Disadvantages:
      The proposal is NOT creating any trouble/change to networks that do not 
      violate the actual policy.
      
      
      6. Impact on resource holders
      ------------------------------
      None.
      
      
      7. References
      --------------
      AFRINIC:
       https://www.afrinic.net/policy/2018-v6-002-d3#details
      
      ARIN:
       https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#2-5-allocation-assignment-reallocation-reassignment 
      and https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_15/
      
      LACNIC:
       https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-7?language=en
      
      RIPE NCC:
       https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04