> 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, LEI 875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10. ICO register №: 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