----------------------------------------------------------------------

prop-124-v004: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposer: Jordi Palet Martínez
          jordi.palet@theipv6company.com


1. 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.

One more case is when an end-user contracts a third-party to do some services 
in their own network and they need to deploy their own devices, even servers, 
network equipment, etc. For example, security surveillance services may require 
that the contractor provides their own cameras, recording system, even their 
own firewall and/or router for a dedicated VPN, etc. Of course, in many cases, 
this surveillance system may need to use the addressing space of the end-user.

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).



2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------

Section 2.2.3. (Definitions/Assigned Address Space), explicitly prohibits 
such assignments, stating that “Assigned ... may not be sub-assigned”.

https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#2.2.3.-Assigned-address-space

This proposal clarifies this situation in this regard and better define the 
concept, particularly considering new uses of IPv6 (RFC 8273), by means of 
a new paragraph.


3. 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 APNIC. Same text has also been submitted 
to AfriNIC, LACNIC and ARIN.


4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------

Add a new paragraph after the existing one in 2.2.3
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#2.2.3.-Assigned-address-space

Actual text:
2.2.3. Assigned address space
Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or end-user, 
for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate. Assignments must 
only be made for specific, documented purposes and may not be sub-assigned.

New text:
2.2.3. Assigned address space
Assigned address space is address space that is delegated to an LIR, or end-user, 
for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate. Assignments must 
only be made for specific, documented purposes and may not be sub-assigned.

Providing addressing space to third party devices including addresses for 
point-to-point links and/or non-permanently providing addressing space to third 
parties, for use on a network managed and operated by the assignment holder, 
shall not be considered a sub-assignment.

The provision of addressing space for permanent or semi-permanent connectivity, 
such as broadband services, is still considered a sub-assignment.


5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------

Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making sure to match the real situation 
in the market.


Disadvantages:
None foreseen.


6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------

None

7. References
-------------
Links to RIPE policy amended and new policy proposal submitted.