Yeah, we can see what can be changed textually; Do you have any suggestions?
I would replace "More specific regulations for additional special purpose PI assignments may deviate from generic PI assignment criteria." with: After <DATE OF PROPOSAL IMPLEMENTATION>, unless otherwise excepted, an End User may only have one PI assignment. Exceptions to this include, but are not limited to: - IXP PI assignments - Assignments made before the implementation of this protocol and not yet returned under 7.1.3 - During renumbering Other policies may make other exceptions to this general rule. ------------------------------ Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated. AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13 Pen-y-lan Terrace, Caerdydd, Cymru, CF23 9EU, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Wales under № 12417574 <https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12417574>, LEI 875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10. ICO register №: ZA782876 <https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/ZA782876>. UK VAT №: GB378323867. EU VAT №: EU372013983. Turkish VAT №: 0861333524. South Korean VAT №: 522-80-03080. AS207960 Ewrop OÜ, having a registered office at Lääne-Viru maakond, Tapa vald, Porkuni küla, Lossi tn 1, 46001, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Estonia under № 16755226. Estonian VAT №: EE102625532. Glauca Digital and the Glauca logo are registered trademarks in the UK, under № UK00003718474 and № UK00003718468, respectively. On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 at 12:42, Tobias Fiebig <tobias@fiebig.nl> wrote:
Moin,
The point of pain from the past was actually the phrasing in 2.6
I don't see the problematic phrasing in the old version of 2.6. Can you point it out please?
Ah, my mistake; Actually it was in 5.4.2 of the old text:
"Assignments larger than a /48 (shorter prefix) or additional assignments exceeding a total of a /48 must be based on address usage or because different routing requirements exist for additional assignments."
Which was interpreted to parse to:
Assignments # That are either
[larger than a /48 (shorter prefix)]
# Implicit Exclusive OR or
[additional assignments exceeding a total of a /48]
# If address usage requires larger network [must be based on address usage]
# Inclusive OR or
( # Different routing requirements exist [because different routing requirements exist]
# Implicit conditional; i.e., AND it is about # _additional_ assignments, not a shorter # prefix.
[for additional assignments.]
)
This means that the _only_ way to justify anything larger than a /48 for a single end-site (even considering 'large', i.e., L2 connected ones) can only be justified via address usage/addressing needs. Assuming a /64 per device, this would mean at least (2**16) + 1 devices (i had a corresponding ticket; See the AP-WG ML archives.)
The end-user will, in general, only hold one PI assignment covering their needs at a time.
Perhaps the policy could be reworded to make this clearer.
Yeah, we can see what can be changed textually; Do you have any suggestions?
With best regards, Tobias