[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-4: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

+1

Keep in mind this goes right along with other things we have done we have 
done.

In 2017-5 we changed the IPv6 policy so that only individually routed 
blocks had to be SWIP'ed, and normally routed blocks of a /48 or smaller 
also do not require SWIP.

The policy all along for IPv4 is /29 or more require SWIP.

I can understand placing a SWIP for the entire assignment pool to 
indicate its use if it is in fact needed to receive another allocation of 
IPv6 space, much the same as been done with IPv4 DHCP blocks. Temporary 
assigments should not trigger registration as long as they are below the 
limits above generally, as i doubt anyone will be offering special routing 
on the temporary assignments.

In IPv6, there are positives of giving a prefix delegation to each user, 
and keeping each device on its own network, to protect each of the users 
from each other. While that is not now generally done, I can see this
happening in the future. As long as the temporary assignments are less 
than the minimum reporting requirements for SWIP, I do not see any problem 
with this policy, and favor the short and sweet over the long and wordy.

I do not think revenue or advertisments using the addressses make any 
difference, as long as the addresses provided are indeed temporary and are 
below the SWIP limits.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.


On Tue, 8 May 2018, Chris Woodfield wrote:

> Maybe a better way to approach this question would be, are the use cases at issue here (guest wifi hotspots, etc) a business activity that one would consider a primary line of business for the organization?
>
> I’m wondering if a better way to approach this would be to ask the question as to whether or not the assignment of resources to third-party end users is an action that’s considered a product that the organization/company provides, or an ancillary service. In most cases, wifi hotspots clearly are ancillary, and as such, I would not see any issue with considering those allocations direct assignments. If wifi connectivity is a substantial revenue-generating service for the organization, however, then I agree that an allocation is a better fit.
>
> -C
>
>> On May 8, 2018, at 9:40 AM, Austin Murkland <austin.murkland at qscend.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 9:40 PM Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net <mailto:andrew.dul at quark.net>> wrote:
>> I'd like to suggest that the proposed policy text be shorted and clarified.  I don't believe all the examples are necessary in the definition section.
>>
>> Add to the end of NRPM Section 2.5 - https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#two5 <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#two5>
>>
>> Current draft text:
>>
>> The fact that a unique address or even a unique /64 prefix is non-permanently provided to third parties, on a link operated by the original receiver of the assignment, shall not be considered a sub-assignment. This includes, for example, guests or employees (devices or servers), hotspots, and point-to-point links or VPNs. The provision of addressing for permanent connectivity or broadband services is still considered a sub-assignment. Only the addressing of the point-to-point link itself can be permanent and that addressing can't be used (neither directly or indirectly) for the actual communication.
>>
>> My suggested rewrite:
>>
>> A unique address or a unique /64 prefix that is non-permanently provided to third parties, shall not be considered an assignment.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/24/2018 11:57 AM, David Farmer wrote:
>>> I note that the text in question is the subject of an editorial change that the AC has recently forwarded to Board for review, at a minimum the policy text need to be updated to account for this editorial change. Further, I do not support the text as written.
>>>
>>> I support a change to section 2 that is not quite so IPv6 specific and focused more on the idea that providing hotspot, guest access, or other such temporary access does not necessitate the making of re-assignments from a policy perspective.  Furthermore, such uses are not in conflict with the conditions of an assignment (made by ARIN) or re-assignment (made by an ISP or LIR). Also, If the details of RFC8273 need to be mentioned at all, they should be someplace in section 6, not in section 2, the definitions of assign, allocate, re-assign and re-allocate should remain agnostic about IP version.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 2:22 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net>> wrote:
>>> On 18 April 2018 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-254: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments" as a Draft Policy.
>>>
>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2018-4 is below and can be found at:
>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2018_4.html <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2018_4.html>
>>>
>>> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
>>>
>>>  * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>>>  * Technically Sound
>>>  * Supported by the Community
>>>
>>> The PDP can be found at:
>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>
>>>
>>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Sean Hopkins
>>> Policy Analyst
>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2018-4: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments
>>>
>>> Problem Statement:
>>>
>>> When the policy was drafted, the concept of assignments/sub-assignments did not consider a practice very common in IPv4 which is replicated and even amplified in IPv6: the use of IP addresses for point-to-point links or VPNs.
>>>
>>> In the case of IPv6, instead of unique addresses, the use of unique prefixes (/64) is increasingly common.
>>>
>>> Likewise, the policy failed to consider the use of IP addresses in hotspots, or the use of IP addresses by guests or employees in Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) and many other similar cases.
>>>
>>> Finally, the IETF has recently approved the use of a unique /64 prefix per interface/host (RFC8273) instead of a unique address. This, for example, allows users to connect to a hotspot, receive a /64 such that they are “isolated” from other users (for reasons of security, regulatory requirements, etc.) and they can also use multiple virtual machines on their devices with a unique address for each one (within the same /64).
>>>
>>> Section 2.5 (Definitions/Allocate and Assign), explicitly prohibits such assignments, stating that “Assignments... are not to be sub-assigned to other parties”.
>>>
>>> This proposal clarifies this situation in this regard and better define the concept, particularly considering new uses of IPv6 (RFC8273), by means of a new paragraph.
>>>
>>> 5.    Policy Statement
>>>
>>> Actual Text
>>>
>>> •    Assign - 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 organizations and are not to be sub-assigned to other parties.
>>>
>>> New Text
>>>
>>> •    Assign - 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 organizations and are not to be sub-assigned to other parties.
>>>
>>> The fact that a unique address or even a unique /64 prefix is non-permanently provided to third parties, on a link operated by the original receiver of the assignment, shall not be considered a sub-assignment. This includes, for example, guests or employees (devices or servers), hotspots, and point-to-point links or VPNs. The provision of addressing for permanent connectivity or broadband services is still considered a sub-assignment. Only the addressing of the point-to-point link itself can be permanent and that addressing can't be used (neither directly or indirectly) for the actual communication.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 6.    Comments
>>>
>>> a.    Timetable for implementation:
>>>
>>> Immediate
>>>
>>> b.    Anything else:
>>>
>>> Situation in other regions: This situation, has already been corrected in RIPE, and the policy was updated in a similar way, even if right now there is a small discrepancy between the policy text that reached consensus and the RIPE NCC Impact Analysis. A new policy proposal has been submitted to amend that, and the text is the same as presented by this proposal at ARIN. Same text has also been submitted to AfriNIC, LACNIC and APNIC.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
>>> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ===============================================
>>> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu>
>>> Networking & Telecommunication Services
>>> Office of Information Technology
>>> University of Minnesota
>>> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
>>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
>>> ===============================================
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
>>> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
>> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>