<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Jordi, well, doesn't say so in the subject line, and cannot be done anyway: there is no difference between "to assign" and "to assign". 2.6 (was and) is a definition valid for any IPv6 assignment, be it PI, IXP, Anycast, whatever. So you're aiming at a definition like: <blockquote type="cite"> <h3>2.6. Assign</h3> To “assign” means to delegate address space to an ISP or End User for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate, if it's Provider Independent IPv6 adress space. In case it's not Provider Independent IPv6 address space, and not IPv6 adress space for authoritative TLD or ENUM Tier 0/1 DNS lookup services either, to “assign” means to delegate address space to an End User, of the LIR as an ISP or a of an subordinate ISP, for […]. If the IPv6 address space in question is for authoritative TLD or ENUM Tier 0/1 DNS lookup services, to “assign” means […].</blockquote> IMO that's not going to fly. Furthermore, what needs to be "clarified" about "Assignments […] are not to be sub-assigned to other parties"? They. Are. Not. Any, ever. PIv6 even doubly not (7.). How to put this more "clearly"? From the text of ripe-707, there is a rather clear definition what "making an assignment" is about (and what isn't) — if this is not how this working group expects the RIPE NCC to understand the policy text, then, and only then, the text needs to be modified. Currently I see no motion to lift the "no sub-assignment, period" clause, though. How the RIPE NCC understands the, now current, policy text has been pointed out as part of 2016-04 [1] ("A. RIPE NCC's Understanding of the Proposed Policy"). That "understanding" to me is "good enough" with regard to what 2.6 currently reads. Please re-read that clarification, it's important — obviously you _still_ missed that there is no difference between PIv6 and non-PIv6 in terms of (sub-) assignment. That suggests that, if you're an LIR, an ISP, or an End User, you're probably not assigning/using assigned address space as per policy. That said: what you are aiming at is *not* a "clarification" of what a (sub-) assignment is (and any sub-assignment still is an assignment and therefore falls under the definition per 2.6.). You are looking for extending the allowed use-cases of PIv6. Please keep in mind, though, that anything that could count as a sub-assingment would be still be forbidden by the Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region [2], so the only way forward is to extend the examples in the second paragraph of 2.6 — the one 2016-04 brought us. But why do you want to extend the allowed use cases for PIv6? To me, the general idea that PI space should be for End Users, and End Users only (be them companies, ISPs, or simply people), for their own use, still makes sense, as well as this rationale from [2]: <blockquote type="cite">Some ISPs prefer to receive Internet number resources as an End User rather than becoming an LIR even though they provide services to their own customers and therefore sub-assign address space assigned by the RIPE NCC. Such End User ISPs often receive several separate PI prefixes as this can be a cheaper alternative for them. Sub-assignment of PI address space in this manner is in contravention of the RIPE policies concerning direct resource assignment policies. It is also detrimental to aggregation of routing prefixes in the global routing tables.</blockquote> And, with the … odd interpretation – letting friends & family access one's WiFi via IPv6 constitutes the act of sub-assignment – out of the way, IPv6 is properly usable again, PI or not. Regards, -kai [1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04</a> [2] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/contract-req">http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/contract-req</a> Am 17.01.2019 um 21:22 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:3B0C9C22-977D-4082-ABDB-40E4306B152A@consulintel.es" type="cite"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> <div class="WordSection1"> Hi Kai,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Actually, yes and not.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I’m talking about the clarification of 2.6 in the scope of 7 (PI) not in the scope of PA.<o:p></o:p> <div> Regards,<o:p></o:p> Jordi<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> De: address-policy-wg <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net"><address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net></a> en nombre de Kai 'wusel' Siering <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wusel+ml@uu.org"><wusel+ml@uu.org></a> Organización: Unseen University, Department of Magic Mails Fecha: jueves, 17 de enero de 2019, 20:58 Para: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net"><address-policy-wg@ripe.net></a> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> Hi Jordi, you're mixing things up. This is not about 2016-04, which was approved long time ago. This is about ripe-707 [1], titled "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" — the current policy in question you want to be modified. Regards, -kai [1] <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-707#assign">https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-707#assign</a> Am 17.01.2019 um 20:34 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ:<o:p></o:p> </div> <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"> Hi Kai,<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> You’re missing that 2016-04 is for the clarification of IPv6 PI, not PA.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04</a><o:p></o:p> <div> Regards,<o:p></o:p> Jordi<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> De: address-policy-wg <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net"><address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net></a> en nombre de Kai 'wusel' Siering <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:wusel+ml@uu.org"><wusel+ml@uu.org></a> Organización: Unseen University, Department of Magic Mails Fecha: jueves, 17 de enero de 2019, 20:16 Para: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net"><address-policy-wg@ripe.net></a> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] suggestions from the list about IPv6 sub-assignment clarification<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> On 17.01.2019 15:37, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:<o:p></o:p> </div> <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <pre style="margin-left:70.8pt">We need to consider as well, as I depicted already before, that if you have a physical sever, you probably need also multiple addresses for that server, that's why, I think the policy should allow that (this is clearly now allowed now).<o:p></o:p></pre> </blockquote> Let's consult ripe-707: <o:p></o:p> <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <h3 style="margin-left:70.8pt">2.6. Assign<o:p></o:p></h3> To “assign” means to delegate address space to an ISP or End User for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate. Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other parties.<o:p></o:p> Providing another entity with separate addresses (not prefixes) from a subnet used on a link operated by the assignment holder is not considered a sub-assignment. This includes for example letting visitors connect to the assignment holder's network, connecting a server or appliance to an assignment holder's network and setting up point-to-point links with 3rd parties.<o:p></o:p> </blockquote> <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <h3 style="margin-left:70.8pt">2.9. End Site<o:p></o:p></h3> An End Site is defined as an End User (subscriber) who has a business or legal relationship (same or associated entities) with a service provider that involves:<o:p></o:p> · that service provider assigning address space to the End User<o:p></o:p> · that service provider providing transit service for the End User to other sites<o:p></o:p> · that service provider carrying the End User's traffic<o:p></o:p> · that service provider advertising an aggregate prefix route that contains the End User's assignment<o:p></o:p> </blockquote> By these definitions, only an IR ("2.1. Internet Registry (IR)") can "assign" allocated address space to non-IRs, i. e. ISPs or End Users, in the context of ripe-707. The term "ISP" is not wll defined within ripe-707 except for "LIRs are generally ISPs whose customers are primarily End Users and possibly other ISPs" in "2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR)". The graph in "2. Definitions" suggests that ISPs are the entities that are actually creating the Internet, whereas (L)IRs are involved in distributing IP space only. Since, following 2.6., only an (I)SP _that also is an (L)IR_ could, acting in it's (L)IR role, "assign" address space, 2.9. should therefore receive a friendly "s/service provider/ISP/g" and have the first bullet point removed. On the other hand, 2.6. in it's current form – except for the "separate addresses (not prefixes)" issue, as any singke address IS technically also a /128 prefix – seems rather clear to me: if it's for the documented "specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate", it's fine. Otherwise, a separate assignment is needed for either a new specific use _or a different End User_, so the ISP or End User (or the ISP for it's End User) will have to request that from an (L)IR (which it may be itself, if the ISP or End User is an LIR as well). Thus, if you need "multiple addresses" for your "physical server" and you received an assignment for your infrastructure including your server(s), I cannot see a conflict with ripe-707. If you want to add a dedicated server for a customer of yours, I'd expect you to get a new (non-PI) prefix (i. e. no less than a /64 as per 5.4.1.) for this different End User from your LIR of choice (or have that End User apply for a /48 PIv6 via your cooperative LIR). Regards, -kai <o:p></o:p> ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.theipv6company.com">http://www.theipv6company.com</a> 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.<o:p></o:p> </blockquote> <o:p> </o:p> </div> ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.theipv6company.com">http://www.theipv6company.com</a> 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. </blockquote> </body> </html>