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

[David Farmer]

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> 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
>
> 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
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> 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).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer 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
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20180424/911bebec/attachment.htm>