[sig-policy] New Proposal prop-140-v001: Update End-Site Definition
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-140-v001: Update End-Site Definition" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 52
on Thursday, 16 September 2021.
https://conference.apnic.net/52/program/schedule/#/day/4
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing
list before the OPM.
The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important
part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). 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 appended below and also available at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-140
Regards,
Bertrand and Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-------------------------------------------------------
prop-140-v001: Update End-Site Definition
-------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
Section 2.9 was introduced with an IPv4 mind-set and doesn’t fully
accommodate IPv6 deployments and members that may have multiple sites in
case of assignments.
Even if this text has evolved in several RIRs, the previous changes were
imperfect, and thru this evolution in other RIRs, it was obvious that we
missed some aspects such as “multiple locations” being different than
“end-sites”.
Further to that, sometimes it becomes confusing the fact that there is
not a formal definition of end-user.
Finally, 10.1.4.1. is slightly updated, just to make sure that
assignments are considered per end-site, not member.
Note that those changes are basically editorial clarifications because
do not imply actual changes on what policies already allow.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Ensuring that both end-site and end-user are defined in a more accurate
way.
3. Situation in other regions
-----------------------------
Other RIRs already updated the policies on this regard.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
Actual text:
2.9. End site
An end site is defined as an end-user (subscriber) who has a business
relationship with a service provider that involves:
• that service provider assigning address space to the end-user
• that service provider providing transit service for the end-user to
other sites
• that service provider carrying the end-user's traffic
• that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that
contains the end-user's assignment
10.1.4.1. Initial assignment
…
The minimum size of the assignment is a /48. The considerations of
Section 5.2.4.3 "Assignment of multiple /48s to a single end site" must
be followed if multiple /48s are requested. "APNIC guidelines for IPv6
allocation and assignment requests".
Proposed text:
2.9. End-site
An End-Site is defined as the location of an End-User who has a business
or legal relationship (same or associated entities) with a service
provider that involves:
• that service provider assigning address space to the End-User location
• that service provider providing transit service for the End-User
location to other sites
• that service provider carrying the End-User's location traffic
• that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that
contains the End-User's location assignment
2.10. End-User
Service subscriber or customer from an LIR.
10.1.4.1. Initial assignment
…
The minimum size of the assignment is a /48 per End-Site. The
considerations of Section 5.2.4.3 "Assignment of multiple /48s to a
single end site" must be followed if multiple /48s are requested. "APNIC
guidelines for IPv6 allocation and assignment requests".
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated in terms of clarifying
end-user/end-site and that an end-site is a single location, which can
obtain, in the case of an IPv6 assignment, a /48.
Disadvantages:
None, it is already consistent with the actual practices.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
AFRINIC (different wording, same meaning):
• https://www.afrinic.net/policy/manual#PI-A
RIPE (same wording as suggested by this proposal):
• https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-738