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:
2.6. Assign
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 […].
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]:
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.
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]
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04
[2]
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/contract-req
Am 17.01.2019 um 21:22 schrieb JORDI PALET MARTINEZ: