* Gert Doering
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 01:49:46PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
I never quite understood why we appear to be totally OK with not requiring each individual IPv6 customer assignment to be registered in the database, while we continue to require it for IPv4.
For pool assignments (dynamic IP addresses handed out to dial-in customers), we as a LIR just registered them as ASSIGNED PA assigned to ourselves (and "back then" these assignments fell under the INFRA-AW clause).
But for "static assignments", I think policy never permitted this.
Not sure about the history, but the current version of this "loophole" is quite narrowly defined in the current policy (section 6.2): «IP addresses used solely for the connection of an End User to a service provider (e.g. point-to-point links) are considered part of the service provider's infrastructure.» While it does not differentiate between dynamic and static assignments, do note the use of work «solely». Playing devil's advocate, I would argue that the moment some broadband subscriber decides to set up a port forwarding of 443/tcp to some web server on the LAN where a cake recipe blog is hosted or whatever, the LIR/ISP is then instantly obligated to create a individualised /32 assignment for that address. Cloud providers such as myself are clearly not covered by the loophole. Our customers can freely create and destroy VPSes with shorter lifetimes that your average fruit fly, yet to follow policy we are required to create and destroy the IPv4 /32 assignments in the same rate. I'll admit it, we don't. While we don't expect to get in trouble over this intentional policy violation, it does irk me quite a bit because we do prefer to play by the rules. For IPv6 we use AGGREGATED-BY-LIR for these ranges, and would be nice to be able to ("legally") do something similar for IPv4. Tore